S*" 


'i.lif.lC', 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ''^ 


Presented    by  (^  .  C5N  .  GcAv^OcSVOy-a  ■^\^  .""D, 


Division .';■ 

Section  


THE 


SUBSTANCE  OF  A  DISCOURSE 


PKEACHF.D  IN  THE  HALL  OF  THF. 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  OF  THE  CONGRESS  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES, 


czT'sr  OF  ixTASHinaTorr, 


SUNDAY,  JANUARY  8,  1826. 


RV  THE  RIGHr  REV.  JOHN  ENGLAND.  D.  D. 


BISHOP  OF  niAnLESTON. 


iialtimorr: 

FUBMSMKD   IJY    T.   LUCAS,  JUN'R. 

»Yo.  138  Market  slrcrt. 

182«. 


\ 


DISTRICT  or  MARYLAND,  TO  WIT: 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED.  That  on  this  twentieth  day  of  January,  in  the  fiftieth  year  of  the 
Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Fielding  Lucas,  Jr.  of  the  said  District,  hath 
deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  clairris  as  proprietor,  in  the 
woi-ds  following,  ta  wit: 

"The  substance  of  a  Discourse  preached  in  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  Stares,  in  the  city  of  Washington,  on  Sunday,  January  8, 1826.  By  the 
Bight  Rev.  John  England,  D  D.  Bishop  of  Charleston." 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "An  act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors 
and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned;"  and  also  to  the  Act,  entitled 
"An  Actsupplementar^'  to  the  Act.  entitled  an  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  secu- 
ring the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  ■such  copies, 
during  the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  design- 
ing, engraving,  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

PHILIP  MOORE, 
Clerk  of  tbe  District  of  Manjland. 


JOHN  D.  TOY,  PRINT'. 


PREFACE. 


I  cannot  semi  out  the  following  pages,  without  sta- 
ting the  manner  in  which  their  puhlication  has  been 
caused.  This  will,  I  trust,  excuse  the  many  imperfec- 
tions which  must  be  discovered  by  those  who  peruse 
them. 

Duty  called  me  for  a  few  days  to  the  City  of  Wash- 
ington, and  some  of  my  friends  were  kind  enough  to 
procure  from  several  members  of  Congress  the  ex- 
pression of  their  wish  that  I  should  preach  for  them. 
Having  tlic  permission  of  the  Archbishop  of  Baltimore 
to  do  duty  in  his  diocess,  and  having  been  permitted  by 
the  Chaplain  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  oc- 
cupy his  place,  I  consented. 

l^eing  Will  aware  that  some  of  the  topics  treated 
of  in  the  following  pages,  were  not  generally  well  un- 
derstood in  the  United  States,  from  the  want  of  oppor- 
tunity, and  that  amongst  some  of  the  best  informed, 
and  the  best  disposed  citizens,  I  had  frequently  found 
serious  mistakes  as  to  the  tenets  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  their  regard;  I  believed  I  would  be  aiding 
in  the  promotion  of  good  feeling  and  harmony  by 
using  the  opportunity  thus  given  to  me,  in  fairly  ex- 
plaining those  mistakes.  I  therefore  took  them  up  in 
the  order  in  which  they  appear. 


VI 

After  the  discourse,  my  friends  informed  me  that  I 
had  given  satisfaction,  and  on  the  next  day  I  received 
the  following  note  from  a  number  of  members  of  Con- 
gress, with  no  one  of  whom  I  believe  I  have  had  the 
honor  of  an  acquaintance.  Mr.  Condict  informs  me 
that  it  was  the  result  of  accidental  conversation  amongst 
some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  signed  it,  and  I  must 
take  this  opportunity  of  making  to  him  my  acknowledg- 
ments for  his  kind  communications. 

To  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  England, 

SlK, 

We  were  gratified  in  hearing  the  discourse  delivered 
by  you  yesterday,  in  the  Representatives'  chamber, 
and  our  gratification  would  be  much  increased  by  pe- 
rusing it. 

If  not   inconsistent   with   your  views,  we  would  re- 
spectfully solicit  its  publication,  in  such  manner  as  may 
be  most  agreeable  to  yourself. 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servants, 

EBENEZER  TUCKER,  N.  J.     LEWIS  CONDICT,  N.  J. 

JOSHUA  SANDS,  AARON  HOBART,  Mass. 

J  SLOANE,  THOMAS  WHIPPLE,  N.  H. 

JOSEPH  VANCE.  JAMES  WILSON,  Penn. 

C.  A.  WICKLIFFE,  Ky.  B.  BASSETT, 
ENOCH  LINl  OLN,  A.  STEWART, 
ADAM  R.  ALEXANDER,  Tenn.  GEORGE  WOLF, 
WILLIAM  McLEAN,  G.  MITCHELL,  H.  R.  Md. 
SAMUEL  SWAN,  N.  J.  AVILLIAM  BURLEIGH, 

D.  TRIMBLE  PHINEAS  MARKLEY, 

NOYES  BARBER. 

Washington,  Jan,  9th,  1826. 


Vll 


To  this  very  kind  application,  I  sent  the  following 
answer. 

To  the  Hon.  Messrs,  Condtct,  I'ohart,  8^c. 
Gentlemen, 

I  have  just  received  your  very  flattering  request, 
that  I  should  publish  the  scnnon  which  I  delivered  yes- 
terflay  in  the  Hall  of  Representatives. 

I  should  very  gladly  comply  immediately  therewith 
if  it  v\as  in  my  power.  But  I  have  not  written,  nor 
have  1  taken  a  note  of  my  discourse. 

I  understand  that  some  gentleman  who  was  present 
took  notes,  1  shall  endeavour  to  discover  if  such  was 
the  fart,  and  with  the  aid  of  his  manuscript  I  should 
easily  he  certain  of  being  substantially  correct.  Other- 
wise I  should  only  be  able  to  give  such  an  outline  of 
my  argument  as  would  bear  a  similarity  to  what  I  de- 
livered. 

My  duties  call  me  hence  immediately.  But  I  shall 
do  what  lies  in  my  power  to  meet  your  wishes. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  Gentlemen,  with  respect 
and  esteem. 

Your  obedient  humble  servant, 

tJOHN,  BUhop  of  Charleston. 
Monday,  Jan.  'J//*,  1826. 

As  I  was  obliged  to  leave  Washington,  I  requested 
of  a  friend  to  procure  for  my  inspection  and  correction, 
the  copy  made  out  from  tbe  notes  of  the  gentleman  vvlio 
I  was  led  to  believe  took  tbem,  but  on  Thursday  I 
was  informed  that  no  notes  had  been  taken.  And  as 
my  delay  in  tbis  city  was  to  be  very  short,  and  my 
desire  to  comply  with  the  request  sincere,  1  lost  no  time 


Vlll 

in  putting  ray  recollections  ot  what  I  had  preached  in 
writing.  I  believe  the  following  pages  will  be  found 
substantially  correct,  and  this  simple  narrative,  will  I 
trust,  plead  my  excuse  for  much  defect  of  style,  and 
want  of  decoration,  as  I  was  not  able  to  wait  to  revise 
what  I  have  thus  sent  to  press,  more  to  gratify  my 
friends,  than  to  exhibit  myself. 

t  JOHN,  Bishop  of  Charleston. 
Baltimore,  Jan.  16//i.  1826. 


DISCOURSE. 


My  Brethren f 

The  peculiar  circmnstances  in  which  I  find 
myself  placed  in  this  respectable  assemblage,  are  to  me 
the  cause  of  some  embarrassment;  for  I  look  upon  the 
situation  in  which  1  stand  to  be  one  of  extreme  delica- 
cy.— 1  am  the  minister  of  a  religion  professed  by  a  mi- 
nority of  our  citizens;  standing,  by  the  permission  of 
the  pastor  of  a  diflerent  communion,  in  accordance  with 
the  wish  of  some  of  my  friends  and  their  associates, 
members  of  the  legislature  of  this  nation,  to  address  you 
upon  the  subject  of  religion.  Whilst  I  know  that  I 
ought  to  speak  freely,  1  also  feel  that  I  should  avoid  any 
iinpleasant  reference  to  those  (lillerences  which  exist 
between  persons  proftssing  Christianity,  except  where 
the  necessity  of  the  case  would  demand  such  reference. 
And  I  am  fully  awan ,  that  as  I  am  the  first  clergyman 
of  the  church  to  which  I  belong,  who  has  had  the  honor 
of  addressing  you  from  this  chair,  it  must  be  generally 
expected  that  1  would  ratiier  speak  upon  some  of  the 
peculiarities  of  my  own  faith,  than  content  myself  with 
giving  a  discourse  upon  any  general  topic,  that  as  being 
common  to  ail,  would  be  to  you  matter  of  no  special  in- 
terest. 

But  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  particular  ground  of  this 
description,  it  will  be  necessary  at  first  to  exanjine  the 
general  principles  of  our  religion:  through  these  the 
avenue  lies,  and  through  that  we  must  proceed.  Upon 
those  general  principles,  I  presume  1  shall  be  found  to 
accord  with  the  great  bulk  of  my  auditors;  though  I 
cannot  iiopc  that  ihev  will  all  agree  with  me  in  my  de- 
2 


10 

tails,  OP  rather  in  my  conclusions. — I  shall  then  com- 
mence, by  examining  what  religion  is;  that  from  this 
examination  we  may  arrive  at  the  proper  place  for  mak- 
ing our  farther  inquiry. 

Religion  is  the  homage  which  man  owes  to  God. — 
This,  and  this  only,  is  religion;  every  thing  is  embrac- 
ed in  this  principle;  no  detail  is  excluded  from  this  de 
finition. — Man's  duty  to  God  is,  tben,  religion.  Thus 
to  know  what  roan's  duty  is,  we  are  brought  to  excimine 
his  natur^ — that  nature  is  two- fold — spiritual  and  cor- 
poreal— the  sj)irit  superior  to  the  body,  more  perfect 
than  the  body:  the  first  duty  of  a  religious  man  is  to 
worshij)  God,  who  is  a  Spirit,  in  spirit  and  in  truth. — 
But  to  know  how  this  spiritual  worship  is  to  be  paid  by 
man  to  his  Creator,  we  must  learn  of  what  man's  spirit 
consists,  or  rather  we  must  see  what  fitculties  it  em- 
braces. The  first  faculty  of  the  soul  is  the  understand- 
ing, by  which  we  discern  truth  from  error.  Man  is 
bound  to  worship  God  by  his  faculties;  his  leading  du- 
ty is  then  to  worship  God  with  his  understanding;  and 
the  great  province  of  the  understanding  being  to  discri- 
minate between  truth  and  error,  man's  primary  reli- 
gious obligation  is  to  labour  for  the  discovery  of  truth, 
and  to  adhere  to  what  he  shall  have  thus  discovered. 
Truth  and  falsehood  are  not,  therefore,  matters  of  in- 
difference— man's  obligation  is  to  adhere  to  truth,  and 
to  reject  falsehood;  the  exertion  of  the  understanding  for 
this  purpose  is  then  our  first,  our  highest  <tuty:  to  ne- 
glect this  is  criminal.  This  investigation  for  the  disco- 
very of  religious  truth  is  the  duty  of  every  human  be- 
ing;  each  person  is  bound  to  inquire  to  the  best  of  his 
power;  and  he  who  neglects  or  overlooks  his  obligatioa 
is  inexcusable. 

But  it  is  not  enough  that  the  understanding  is  en- 
lightened. It  is  not  for  the  mere  object  of  being  ac- 
quainted with  speculative  truth,  that  we  should  inquire. 
The  second  faculty  of  the  soul  is  the  will;  its  determi- 
nations are  formed  with  perfect  freedom;  generally  up- 
on the  knowledge  which  has  been  acquired;  hence  the 
discovery  of  truth  should  be  pursued,  for  the  purpose 


II 

of  regulating  the  clcterm'mations  of  the  will;  and  the 
honiiigc-  of  tliis  f.icnity  is  paid  to  the  Creator,  by  cnnti- 
luially  deterniinitjg  to  act  according  to  the  law  of  rea- 
son, as  it  has  been  discovered  after  sulUcient  in(|Miry. 

Moreover,  we  feel  within  ourselves,  and  all  mankind 
testifies  to  a  sii;iilar  experience,  that  after  sncn  a  resnlt 
we  do  not  always  act  as  we  have  determined.  The  al- 
lurements of  the  worhl  in  which  we  live,  nmtu  il  exam- 
ple, and  a  variety  of  afTcctions,  desires  and  passions, 
interfere  between  the  determinations  of  the  will,  and 
the  carrying  of  those  resolutions  into  effect.  But  it  is 
our  duty  to  withstand  those  allurements,  not  to  be  mis- 
led by  example;  to  regulate  our  affections  and  desires, 
to  keep  our  passions  in  subjection  to  our  reasonal)le  de- 
terminations, atui  thus  to  do  in  all  things  the  perfect 
will  of  God,  which  must  accord  with  the  great  rule  of 
reason. 

Man  is  not  wholly  a  spirit;  he  is  also  a  material  be- 
ing; having  a  body,  and  living  in  a  visible  world,  where 
his  fellow  creatures  are  also  in  bodily  existence:  he 
owes  to  his  Creator  external  homage  witli  that  body,  as 
well  to  pay  to  the  author  of  his  whole  being  the  worship 
of  all  its  parts,  as  to  give  evidence  to  others  that  will, 
at  the  same  time,  satisfy  them  of  his  acting  with  due 
res|)ect  to  the  gieat  Father  of  all,  as  also  to  excite 
his  brethren  to  religion,  by  his  own  good  exaniple. 
Pure  unbodierl  intelligences  who  worship  before  the 
throne  of  the  Most  High,  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  pay  the 
homage  of  their  whole  being  in  mere  spiritual  adora- 
tion, because  they  arc  altogether  and  exclusively  spi- 
ritual in  their  nature.  Man,  made  less  than  the  angels, 
bears  about  him  a  body  which  he  has  received  from  the 
creator  of  his  soul; — the  dissimilarity  of  their  natures 
destroys  the  analogy  by  whii;h  it  might  be  sought  to  es- 
tablish, that  his  worship  should  be  in  all  things  similar 
to  that  paid  by  a  spirit  having  no  material  parts  joined 
in  his  nature. 

The  plain  result  of  these  considerations  must  be,  that 
it  is  our  duty  to  exert  our  understanding  for  the  dis- 
eovery  of  truth,  to  frame  the  determinations  of  our  will 


12 

according  to  ascertained  truth,  and  to  carry  those  de- 
terminations into  effect,  to  bring  our  affections  into 
accordance  with  reason,  to  keep  our  passions  under 
proper  restraint,  and  to  pay  to  God  external  homage. 
This  is  what  we  call  natural  religion;  for  it  is  what 
nature  and  reason  exhibit  as  our  duty. 

If  God  never  revealed  his  will  to  man,  we  should 
have  those  great  principles  only  for  our  guidance  to 
the  fulfilment  of  our  obligations  to  our  Creator.  But 
two  questions  nattjrally  present  themselves  to  us;  did 
God  ever  mal?e  special  communications  to  any  of  our 
race?  And  if  he  did,  could  such  revelation  destroy  or 
weaken  the  force  of  the  principles  of  natural  religion? 

To  the  last  question  an  immediate  answer  may  be 
unhesitatingly  given.  No  revelation  made  by  God  can 
destroy  or  weaken  the  force  of  those  principles.  On 
the  contrary,  such  revelation  must  not  only  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  them,  but  would  tend  rather  to  strengthen 
them,  and  to  give  more  precision  to  their  applica- 
tion. God,  the  eternal  truth,  cannot  be  inconsistent 
with  himself.  Truth  cannot  be  contradictory  to  truth. 
Human  reason  is  a  spark  emanating  from  the  great  fire 
of  eternal  truth;  though  extremely  limited,  yet  it  has 
proceeded  from  the  infinite  Deity:  its  slender  ray 
may  too  often  im])erfcctly  exhibit  what  lie  f  around 
lis  in  the  dark  labyrinth  though  which  we  journey 
to  the  grave;  and  the  same  objects  would  be  more 
fully  exposed  to  view,  and  more  distinctly  under- 
stood, if  the  effulgence  of  the  Godhead  poured  its  bril- 
liant flood  around.  The  objects  then,  by  either  light, 
would  still  continue  unchanged,  though  their  appear- 
ance would  in  each  case  be  materiolly  altered.  What 
human  reason  clearly  and  fully  discovers  cannot  be 
knowr»  otherwise, by  the  intelligence  of  God,  and  his 
testimony  by  revel  tion  would  still  accord  with  his  tcs- 
timi»ny  by  human  reason;  but  too  frecpiently  we  are 
disposed  to  conclude,  that  we  are  well  acquainted  with 
what  we  very  imperfectly  know,  and  we  assert  that 
reason  testifies  where  it  does  not.  Hence  there  is  cre- 
ated an  apparent  conflict  between  what  we  say  our 


13 

reason  testifies,  and  what  we  state  that  God  reveals. 
But  the  gi'Ci.t  duties  of  iintiiral  religion  are  erjiitlly 
enforced  by  both.  If  we  shonUl  find  that  God  did 
make  a  revehition,  there  will  not  be  any  thint^  fonnd  in 
that  revelation  to  weaken  the  principles  of  natural 
religion.  The  first  principle  of  each  is,  that  man  is 
obliged  to  exert  himself  for  the  discovery  of  truth.  In 
a  state  of  mere  nature  we  would  have  only  the  testi- 
mony of  our  own  reason:  in  a  state  of  revelation  we 
have  the  additional  aid  of  the  testimony  of  God.  Al- 
though the  one  is  more  extensive  and  more  perfect 
than  the  other,  still  there  can  be  no  conflict  between 
them.  Daily  experience  ought  to  convince  us,  how 
limited  is  our  knowledge.  Yet  our  pride  urges  us  to 
thirik  that  we  can  be  acquainted  with  even  the  secrets 
of  the  Godhead.  We  certainly  are  not,  and  cannot  be 
bound  to  believe  without  such  evidence  as  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  satisfy  the  mind.  That  evidence  must  be  the 
exhibition  of  truth  to  our  own  reason,  or  our  perfect 
satisfaction  that  we  receive  the  testimony  of  God. 
Without  this  evidence  no  man  is  bound  to  believe. 
The  humblest  individual  who  walks  the  earth  has  not 
been  subjected  by  his  Creator  to  any  dominion  which 
can  enthral  his  intellect;  he  stands  before  his  Maker 
as  independent  in  his  mind  as  does  the  bright^^st  intel- 
ligence which  scans  the  perfections  of  the  Deity,  and 
glows  in  the  raptures  of  his  vision.  It  is  true  that  we 
are  made  lower  than  the  ministering  spirits  who  sur- 
round the  throne  of  heaven.  Yet  we  are  not  made 
subjtct  to  them.  Nor  is  any  man's  mind  miide  subject 
to  his  fellow  man.  But  we  all  are  upon  this  ground 
made  originally  equal;  all  bound  to  believe  God  when 
he  speaks,  all  bound  to  admit  his  infinite  knowledge, 
to  testify  to  his  unerring  truth,  and  to  pay  the  homage 
of  our  submission  to  his  declaration.  Every  creature 
must  bow  every  faculty  before  the  Creator,  but  to  the 
Creator  alone.  Titus  we  find  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  revealed  religion  to  be,  that  man  is  bound  to 
pay  to  God  the  homage  of  his  understanding  by  believ 
ing  him   when  he  makes  a  revelation.     This  belief  is 


14 

Faith;  thnt  is,  the  belief  upon  the  testimony  of  God,  of 
truths  or  facts  which  unaided  human  reason  could  not 
discover.  And  since  we  should  exert  ourselves  to  dis- 
cover truth,  we  cannot  be  excused  from  making  the 
inquiry  as  to  whether  God  made  a  revelation,  and  if  he 
did  what  were  his  communications.  Nor  can  it  be  to 
us  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  we  take  up  truth 
or  error  for  regidating  the  determinations  of  our  will. 
If  it  was  not  beneath  the  dignity  of  God  to  stoop  for 
the  instruction  of  man,  it  cannot  be  a  degradation  for 
man  to  rai.e  himself  to  learn  from  his  Creator.  It  is 
his  duty  to  learn  and  to  obey.  'J'he  view  then  given 
by  us  of  revealed  religion  is  that  it  consists  in  believ- 
ing God  when  he  teaches  us,  and  in  obeying  him  when 
he  commands  us,  and  of  course  adhering  to  his  institu- 
tions. Whatever  is  the  necessary  consequence  of  this 
great  principle  we  say  is  religion.  Any  thing  which 
is  not  embraced  in  this  is  not  religion.  It  may  be  su- 
perstition, it  may  be  fanaticism,  it  may  be  infidelity,  it 
may  be  folly;  hut  it  is  not  religion.  Faith  then  is  not 
folly,  it  is  not  abject  slavery  of  the  mind,  it  is  not 
visionary  fanaticism,  it  is  not  irrational  assent  to  unin- 
telligible propositions;  but  it  is  believing  upon  the  tes- 
timony of  God  what  human  reason  could  not  discover, 
but  whiit  a  provident  and  wise  D^^ty  communicates  for 
the  information  of  our  minds  and  the  direction  of  our 
will. 

And  surely  there  are  a  multitude  of  truths  which  are 
l«nown  to  God,  and  whose  discovery  is  yet  beyond  the 
reach  of  our  limited  faculties!  We  are  surrounded  by 
mysteries  of  nature;  we  observe  innumerable  facts,  not 
one  of  which  has  yet  been  explained,  and  many  of  which 
would  be  almost  pronounced  contradictions,  although 
known  to  be  in  co-existence — man  is  himself  a  mystery 
to  man — yet  the  God  who  formed  his  body,  and  created 
his  soul,  phiinly  sees  and  distinctly  understands  all  the 
minute  details  of  the  wonderfid  machine  of  his  body; 
and  is  well  acquainted  with  his  vital  prinr.ijiie:  the  na- 
ture and  essence  of  the  soul  arc  within  his  view.  He 
is  lifted  above  the  heavens;  his  days  are  from  eternity 


13 

to  eternity:  he  pervades  all  space;  his  eye  beholds  the 
worlds  which  roll  in  the  firmament,  and  emhraces  the 
infinite  void;  all  things  which  exist  are  cx|)i)sed  to  his 
vision;  whilst  man,  the  diminutive  speck  upon  a  spot 
of  ciealion,  scarcely  <iistinu;uibhcs  the  objects  which 
dimly  show  within  his  confined  horizon:  sl»all  he  pre- 
sume to  t>ay  that  nothing  exists  heyond  the  narrow  pre- 
cin(  ts  of  his  temporary  prison?  Or,  if  the  God  of  heaven 
declares  some  of  the  riches  which  lie  scattered  through 
his  works  It'  he  vouchsafes  to  inform  us  of  his  own 
nature,  or  of  ours,  that  ojir  relations  might  be  more  spe- 
cifically understood;  our  hopes  more  clearly  founded; 
our  zeal  better  excited;  our  determinations  better  re- 
gulated; and  our  acts  be  more  suitably,  and  simply,  and 
salislactoril)  directed,  shall  stunted  little  man  presume 
to  say  that  perhaps  he  is  deceived,  because  he  has  on- 
ly the  tcstiniony  of  God,  but  not  the  testimony  of  his 
own  reason?  Does  not  his  own  reason  tell  him  that  (iod 
neither  can  be  deceived,  nor  can  he  deceive  his  crea- 
tures? Thus  his  own  reason  inforius  man,  that  the  tes- 
timony of  God,  making  a  revelation,  is  the  very  highest 
evidence  of  truth — the  surest  ground  of  certainty. 

It  might  sonietimes  happen,  that  what  is  found  to 
have  been  testified  by  the  Ocity,  contradicts  what  woidd 
appear,  to  some  individuals,  to  have  been  ascertained 
by  the  piocess  of  their  own  reasoning.  One  principle 
is  plain;  God  cannot  err,  man  freciuently  has  erred,  and 
is  perpetually  liable  to  mistake.  If  then,  we  have  cer- 
tain proof  of  the  declaration  of  the  Creator,  there  can 
be  no  didiculty  in  arriving  at  the  reasonable,  the  prac- 
tical, the  correct  result:  that  result  is  again  our  great 
prii»cij)le — it  is  the  duty  of  man  to  believe  God  when 
he  testifies;  and  the  simple  inquiry  will  be  regarding 
the  question  of  fact,  <'has  God  testified:"  If  he  has, 
our  doubts  must  cease;  our  belief  is  demanded  by  rea- 
son arul  by  religion.  Indeed,  they  are  never  opposed  to 
each  other;  upon  patient  iiujiiiry  they  will  always  be 
found  nuitually  to  aid  each  other.  The  history  of  the 
world  presents  to  us  the  exhibition  of  the  weakness  of 
the  Immau   mind — perpetually   changing  its  theories; 


16 

continually  adding  to  its  stock  of  information;  frequent- 
ly detecting  its  own  mistakes;  correcting  its  aberrations, 
and  proving  its  imbecility,  whilst  it  asserts  its  strength. 
The  Eternal  liod,  infinite  in  his  perfections,  is  always 
the  same;  in  him  there  is  no  vicissitude;  alone,  cliange- 
less  amidst  a  changing  universe;  his  vesture  and  deco- 
ration he  might  change,  but  he  is  eternally  the  same, 
in  his  knowledge  as  in  his  truth:  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  may  pass  away  but  his  word  cannot  fail. 

We  are  thus  brought  to  the  simple  inquiry  concern- 
ing the  fact  of  a  revelation.  The  truth  of  a  fact  must 
be  always  ascertained  by  testimony:  that  testimony 
must  be  such  as  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  produce  con- 
viction of  truth  before  belief  can  be  reasonably  requir- 
ed. When  that  sufficient  testimony  has  been  adduced, 
to  withhold  belief  would  be  unreasonable — unreasonable 
rejection  of  evidence,  where  there  is  no  question  as  to  the 
revelation  of  God,  cannot  be  innocent.  The  refusal  to 
examine  is  plainly  against  the  6rst  principle  of  religion; 
contrary  to  the  plainest  maxims  of  reason.  A  mistake 
honestly  made  is  pardonable,  but  the  rejection  of  evi- 
dence must  be  irreligious. 

In  examining  whether  revelation  has  been  actually 
made,  we  are  met  by  a  variety  of  preliminary  difficul- 
ties,  before  we  are  permitted  to  enter  upon  the  evidence 
of  the  fact;  but  1  should  hope  that  a  few  plain  observa- 
tions would  easily  remove  them.  As  1  give  but  a  very 
imperfect  outline  of  the  ground  of  proof,  respecting  this 
head,  my  object  being  rather  to  hasten  forward  to  some 
specialties  regarding  that  particular  church  in  which  I 
have  the  honor  of  being  a  minister,  than  to  dwell  upon  tue 
general  ground  which  is  common  to  us  all,  they  must  be 
few.  But  there  is  a  philosophy,  which  endeavours  to 
stop  our  progress  at  this  pass.  Phil  sophy  did  I  call  it! 
No — 1  was  wrong  to  dignify  it  with  that  appellation.  It 
is  a  species  of  perplexing  sophistry,  which,  clothing  itself 
in  the  garb  of  rational  inquiry  asks  a  thousand  questions, 
to  which  neither  itself  nor  philosophy  can  answer  with 
satisfaction;  they  are  questions  which  bewilder  the 
mind,  but  cannot  assist  the  understanding:  they  are  fully 


17 

sufficient  to  show  the  weakness  of  our  reason,  and  to 
teach  us  to  distrust  ourselves  because  of  the  imperfec- 
tion of  our  faculties;  but  urged  too  far,  tl)ty  might  force 
us  to  conclude,  that  we  should  make  no  exertion,  be- 
cause wc  are  not  omnipotent;  that  we  shoidd  make  no 
inquiry,  because  we  cannot  elucidate  all  that  is  dark; 
that  we  can  have  no  certainty,  because  there  are  some 
cases  of  doubt;  and  that  we  have  no  information,  be- 
cause there  is  some  knowledge  beyond  our  reach.  That 
certainly  does  not  deserve  the  name  of  philosophy  which 
would  only  fill  the  world  with  doubts,  and  conjectures, 
and  probabilities,  instead  of  knowledge  of  fact  founded 
upon  evidence  of  testimony.  Sophistry,  having  led  you 
from  your  plain  path  and  bewildered  you  in  a  labyrinth, 
by  turns  smiles  at  your  folly,  sheds  the  tear  of  mocking 
condolence  for  your  degradation,  and  sneers  at  your  baf- 
fled efforts  to  extricate  yourself:  but  calm  and  dignified 
philosophy  unfolds  to  you  the  plain  evidence  of  facts; 
and  having  fully  established  the  truth  of  the  fact,  draws 
thence  the  irresistible  conclusion:  thus  leading  in  a  way 
in  whicli  even  fools  cannot  err:  this  is  the  path  of  re- 
ligion. 

I  may  be  asked,  when  will  man  know  that  he  has 
evidence  of  fact;  and  how  shall  he  know  it.  There 
are  some  questions  which  are  more  plainly  answer- 
ed by  our  conviction  than  by  any  induction.  The  feel- 
ing of  the  evidence  is  so  strong  that  we  can  by  the 
very  expression  of  the  feeling,  testify  to  others  what 
they  know  because  they  too  feel  as  we  do,  and  they 
know  that  we  should,  by  any  attempt  at  inductive  proof, 
make  perfectly  obscure  that  which  withotit  this  effort 
would  be  fully  and  confessedly  evident.  Ask  me,  how 
I  know  that  I  have  evidence  of  light  being  now  diflfused 
around  me;  how  you  have  evidence  that  I  now  address 
you;  how  we  all  have  evidence  of  our  existence; — who 
wdl  undertake,  by  any  process  of  reasoning,  to  produce 
a  stronger  feeling  of  conviction  than  exists  by  the  very 
feeling  of  the  evidence?  Nor  have  we  any  form  of  ex- 
pression, which  could  carry  more  conviction  to  the 
mind,  than  that  which  announces  the  feeling  itself: 
3 


18 

each  individual  will  know  when  that  feeling  exists 
within  him.  No  speculation  will  aid  him  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  fact;  and  where  the  general  testi- 
mony of  mankind  is  jjjiven  to  the  existence  of  this  feel- 
ing, it  cannot  but  have  an  intimate  connexion  with 
truth.  If  it  had  not,  the  God  who  formed  our  nature 
such  as  it  is,  would  have  placed  us  under  a  delusion 
from  which  we  could  not  be  extricated,  and  the  asser- 
tion of  this  not  only  would  destroy  every  ci  iterion  by 
which  truth  could  be  distinguished  from  error,  but 
would  be  blasphemy  against  the  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse. 

Let  us  come  to  view  how  we  ascertain  the  fact  of 
revelation.  If  there  is  any  special  work  which  is  so 
peculiarly  and  exclusively  that  of  an  individual,  as 
that  it  can  be  performed  by  no  other,  the  fact  of  the  ex- 
istence ot  that  work  establishes  the  fact  of  his  presence; 
and  if  his  presence  is  a  testimony  by  him  of  his  con- 
currence in  declarations  then  made,  he  is  respDnsible 
for  the  truth  of  those  declarations.  We  believe  mira- 
cles to  be  works  above  the  power  of  created  beings, 
and  requiring  the  immediate  presence  and  agency  of 
the  Divinity,  and  given  by  him  as  the  proof  of  his 
commission  to  the  individuals  or  societies  whom  he 
makes  witnesses  to  men  of  truth  revealed  by  him. 
The  feeling  of  the  miracle  being  evidence  of  his  pre- 
sence for  this  purpose  is  so  general,  and  its  testimony 
so  fully  given  by  th  -  human  race,  a*  well  by  their 
spontaneous  declaration,  as  by  their  whole  course  of 
conduct,  that  it  would  argue  in  our  Creator  himself  a 
total  disregard  for  man's  information  if  he  permitted 
its  existence  during  so  many  centuries,  and  with  such 
inevitable  results,  unless  it  was  a  criterion  of  truth. 
The  same  consequences  would  necessarily  follow  fro  n 
a  permission  on  the  part  of  God  of  a  general  delusion 
of  mankind  as  to  the  species  of  works  that  were  mira- 
culous. When  the  feeling  generally  existed,  and  was 
acted  upon  most  extensively  during  a  long  series  of 
ages,  th.it  works  of  a  peculiar  description  were  em- 
phatically miracles^  and  that  the  performance  of  those 


19 

miracles  was  an  undoubted  proof  of  God's  presence  to 
uphold  tlic  truth  of  the  declarations  in  ide  in  his  name 
by  the  agents  or  the  instruments  used  in  these  works: 
the  Author  of  our  nature  would  be  chargeable  with 
aiding  in  our  delusion,  if  he  did  not  as  he  could,  and 
as  his  perfections  would  demand,  interfere  to  correct 
the  error. 

Our  next  observations  must  regard  the  quantity  of 
testimony  which  would    be  required    to   prove   one  of 
those  miraculous  facts.     The  assertion  has  sometimes 
been  made,   that  more   than  usually  would  suffice  fop 
establishing  an  ordinary   fact,  would  be  necessary  to 
prove  the  existence  of  a  miracle.     We  altogether  dis- 
sent from   this  position.     The  facts  in  the  one  case  are 
precisely  as   obvious  to  examination  as  in  the   other. 
Strange  as  the  assertion  which  I  am  about  to  make, 
will  probably  appear  to  many  who  have  honoured  Mie 
with  their  attention;    I  plainly  say,  that  it  will  be  found 
upon  reflection,  that  there  is  far  less  danger  of  deceit 
or  mistake  in  the  examination  of  a  miraculous  fact  than 
there  is  in  one  of  ordinary  occurrence.     The  reason  is 
•simple,  and   I  believe  natural  and  evidently  sufficient. 
The  mind  is  less  liable  to  be  imposed  upon,  when  its 
curiosity  is  greatly  excited,  and  when  its  jealousy  and 
suspicions  are  awakened,  than  when  it  is  prepared  to 
expect  and  to  admit  what  it  is  daily,  perhaps  hourly 
in   the  habit   of  expecting  and  admitting.     Ordinary 
events   excite   no   curiosity,    create  no    surprise,   and 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  admitting,  that  Nvhat  has  fre- 
quently occurred,  occurs  again,  the  statement  of  such 
an  occurrence  will  easily  pass.     But  the  state  of  the 
mind  is  widely  difftrent,  when  we  eagerly  seek  to  as- 
certain whether  what  has  never  been  witnessed  by  us 
before,  has  now  come  under  our  observation,  or  whe- 
ther we  have  not  been  under  some  delusion;  whether 
an  attempt  has  not  been  made  to  deceive  us.     VVe  ia 
such   a  case   become  extremely  jealous;   we  examine 
with  more  than  ordinary  care,  and  we  run  less  risk  of 
being  deceived  or  mistaken. 


20 

No  person  doubts  the  power  of  the  Creator,  the  su- 
preme legislator  and  preserver  of  the  universe,  to  sus- 
pend any  law  of  nature  in  the  course  of  its  operation, 
or  to  select  some  individual  case  which  he  will  except 
from  the  operation  of  that  law,  and  during  his  own 
pleasure.  The  question  can  never  be  as  to  this  power, 
as  to  the  possibility  of  a  miraculous  interference;  but  it 
always  must  regard  the  fact,  and  that  fact  must  be  es- 
tablished by  testimony,  and  without  the  evidence  of 
testimony,  no  person  who  was  not  present  can  be  re- 
quired to  believe.  There  does  not,  and  cannot  exist, 
any  individual  or  tribunal,  with  power  to  require  or 
command  the  humblest  mortal  to  believe  without  evi- 
dence. 

There  is  no  place  in  which  the  rules  of  evidence  are 
better  understood,  or  more  accurately  observed,  than 
in  our  respectable  courts  of  law.     Permit  me  for  the 
moment,  to  bring  your  attention  to  one  of  those  cases 
which  frequently  presents  itself  to  the  view  of  our  citi- 
zens.— There  stands  a  citizen  charged  with  the  mur- 
der of  his  fellow  man.     Long  experience,  deep  study, 
unsullied  purity,  calm  impartiality,  and   patience  for* 
investigation,  form  the  judicial  character;  they  are  found 
upon  the  bench.     Steady  integrity,  the  power  of  dis- 
crimination, the  love  of  justice,  a  deep  interest  in  the 
welfare  of  the  community,  and  the  sanction  of  a  solemn 
pledge  to  heaven,  are  all  found  in  the  jury;  the  public 
eye  is  upon  them,  and  the  supreme  tribunal  of  public 
opinion,  after  an  open  hearing  of  the  case,  is  to  pro- 
nounce upon  the  judges  and  the  jurors  themselves.  The 
life  or  death,  the  fame  or  infamy  of  the  accused   lies 
with  them,  and  is  in  their  keeping,  at  the  peril  of  their 
feelings,   their  character,   their  conscience  and    their 
souls.     The  decision  must  be  made  by  the   evidence 
arising  from  testimony,  and  that  the  testimony  of  men, 
and  those  men  liable  to  all  the  weakness,  and  all  the 
bad  passions  of  humanity.     Yet  here,  in  this  important 
case,  a  solemn  decision  must  be  made.    That  jury  must 
be  satisfied,  that  the  person  now  said  to  be  dead  was 
living,  that  he  is  now  dead,  that  the  change  from  life 


21 

to  death  was  produced  by  the  act  of  their  fellow  citi- 
zen now  arraigned  before  them;  that  this  act  was  done 
with  sufTioitMit  deliberation  to  proceed  from  malicious 
intent;  thai  for  this  act  he  had  no  authority;  he  who 
was  deprived  of  life  being  a  peaceable  person  under 
the  protection  of  tiie  state.  In  this  there  is  frequent- 
ly much  perplexity,  and  little  testimony,  and  that  testi- 
mony frequently  regarding  not  the  substantial  ingre- 
dients of  the  crime,  but  establishing  facts  from  which 
those  that  form  the  ingredients  are  only  derived  by  in- 
ference. Still  we  find  convictions  and  executions,  and 
the  jury  with  the  approbation  of  the  bench,  and  the  as- 
sent of  the  community,  uidiesitatingly  put  on  solemn  re- 
cord their  conviction  of  the  truth  of  facts  which  they 
never  saw,  and  of  which  they  have  only  the  testimony 
of  their  fellow  men;  and  upon  this  testimony  society 
agrees  that  property,  liberty,  life  and  fame  shall  all  be 
disposed  of  with  perfect  assurance  of  truth  and  justice. 
1  will  now  suppose  that  court  constituted  as  I  have 
descril)ed,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  fact 
of  murder.  A  number  of  respectable  witnesses  depose 
to  tlie  fact  of  the  person  stated  to  have  been  slain  hav- 
ing been  alive,  they  were  in  habits  of  intimacy  with 
him,  were  his  companions  during  years,  some  of  them 
have  seen  his  dead  body,  in  presence  of  others  who 
also  testify  to  their  having  seen  and  examined  that  bo- 
dy, those  last  were  present  when  the  prisoner  with 
perfect  deliberation  inflicted  a  wound  upon  the  deceas- 
ed. There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
deceased,  and  there  is  none  as  to  the  identity  of  the 
prisoner.  A  number  of  physicians  testify  iheir  opinion 
as  to  the  wound  so  given,  and  which  they  examined, 
being  a  sudicient  cause  of  death.  The  accused  pro- 
duces no  authority  for  his  act;  there  has  been  no  pro- 
cess of  law  against  the  deceased,  who  was  a  peaceable 
and  well  conducted  citizen.  How  could  that  jury  hesitate? 
They  must,  painful  as  is  the  task,  they  must  consign  the 
unfortunate  culprit  to  the  just  vengeance  of  the  law — 
the  judge  must  deliver  him  to  the  executioner,  and  the 
public  record  of  the  state  must  exhibit  his   infamy. 


22 

Life  and  character  must  both  disappear;  they  are  swept 
away  by  the  irresistible  force  of  evidence,  founded  up- 
on human  testimony.  The  widow  must  hang  her  head 
in  shame;  in  the  recess  of  her  dwelling  she  must  sit  in 
lonely,  disconsolate,  unsupported  grief;  the  orphans 
blush  to  bear  their  father's  name;  the  brothers  would 
forget  their  kindred;  and  perhaps  even  grey  hairs , 
would  gladly  bow  still  lower,  than  compelled  by  grief 
and  years,  to  court  the  concealment  of  the  grave. 

Yet,  still,  when  fact  becomes  evident  from  the  exa- 
mination of  testimony,  we  must  yield  our  assent  to  that 
fact  without  regarding  its  consequences. 

Let  me  continue  my  supposition. — Before  the  disso- 
lution of  that  court — whilst  it  is  yet  in  session,  that  jury 
still  occupying  their  seats — a  rush  is  made  into  the  hall — 
the  same  identical  witnesses  appear  again;  but  they  are 
accompanied  by  the  deceased — now  raised  to  life: — 
They  testify,  that  as  they  were  departing  from  the 
court,  a  man,  whom  they  produce,  proclaimed  that  he 
was  commissioned  by  the  Most  High  to  deliver  his 
great  behests  to  his  fellow  men;  and  that  to  prove  the 
validity  of  his  commission,  he  summoned  them  to  ac- 
company him  to  the  tomb  of  that  man  whose  death  they 
had  so  fully  proved,  and  that  by  an  appeal  to  heaven 
for  the  authenticity  of  his  commission,  that  man  should 
revive.  They  went — they  saw  the  body  in  the  grave — 
the  claimant  upon  heaven  called  upon  the-eternal  God 
to  show  that  he  had  sent  him  to  teach  his  fellow  men — 
he  calls  the  deceased — the  body  rises — the  dead  has 
come  to  life — he  accompanies  them  to  the  court — he  is 
recognized  by  his  acquaintances — confessed  by  his 
friends — felt  by  the  people — he  speaks,  he  breathes — 
he  moves,  he  eats,  he  drinks,  he  lives  amongst  them. — 
Can  that  court  refuse  to  say  that  it  is  satisfied  of  the  fact 
of  the  resuscitation?  What  would  any  honest  man  think 
of  the  members  of  that  jury,  should  they  swear  that 
this  man  had  not  been  resuscitated  by  the  interference 
of  that  individual  who  thus  proves  his  commission?  If 
that  jury  could,  upon  the  testimony  of  those  witnesses, 


23 

find  the  first  iHct,  why  shall  they  not  upon  the  same 
testimony  find  the  second? 

But  we  may  he  asked  how  we  know  that  this  man 
was  dead?  Probably  it  was  only  a  mistake.  He  could 
not  have  been  totally  bereft  of  life.  Ask  the  jury,  who, 
upon  the  certainty  of  the  fact  of  death,  consigned  their 
fellow  citizen  to  infamy  and  to  the  gallows.  Shall  we 
admit  t.ic  certainty  for  the  purposes  of  human  justice, 
and  qiiil)ble  with  our  convictions  to  exclude  the  testi- 
mony of  heaven?  This,  indeed,  would  be  a  miserable 
sophistry.  Would  any  court  upon  such  a  plea,  so  un. 
supported,  issue  a  respite  from  execution?  An  isolated 
jpprhaps  with  nothing  to  rest  upon,  set  up  against  po- 
sitive testimony,  resting  upon  the  uncontradicted  evi- 
dence derived  from  the  senses,  from  experience,  and 
from  analogy.  A  speculative  possibility  against  a 
substan'ive  fact  by  which  the  very  possibility  is  de- 
stroyed! 

Where  is  the  cause  ^f  doubt?  Where  the  difference 
between  the  two  cases?  In  both  suppositions  the  es- 
sential facts  are  the  same, — life,  death, — identity;  the 
difference  consists  in  the  accidental  circunjstance  of 
the  priority  of  one  to  the  other.  The  one  is  the  ordi- 
nary transition  from  life  to  death,  i\x\  occurrence  which 
is  to  us  most  mysterious  and  inexplicable,  but  with  the 
existence  of  which  we  are  long  familiar;  the  other  a 
transition  from  death  to  life,  not  more  mysterious  but 
which  rarely  occurs,  and  when  it  does  occur,  is  most 
closely  examined,  viewed  with  jealous  scrutiny,  and 
which  excites  deep  interest,  and  to  admit  the  truth 
of  which  there  is  no  predisposition  in  the  mind. 
The  facts  are  precisely  the  same  in  the  case  of  the 
murder  and  of  the  miracle,  the  accident  of  the  priority 
of  each  alternately  to  the  other,  constitutes  the  whole 
diflerence.  And  surely  if  witnesses  can  tell  me  that  a 
man  wl«o  has  never  died  shews  all  tlie  symptoms  of  life, 
the  same  v^itnesses  can  tell  me  the  same  fact,  though 
that  man  had  passed  from  death  to  life.  The  symp- 
toms of  life  are  always  the  same,  and  the  testimony 
which  will  establish  the  fact  of  life  at  one  time,  by 


21 

proving  the  existence  of  those  symptoms,  will  be  at  any 
time  sufficient  for  the  same  purpose.  The  same  is  to 
be  said  of  the  symptoms  of  death,  and  of  the  testimony 
which  will  establish  the  fact  by  proving  their  existence. 
It  may  be  objected  that  no  adequate  cause  is  assigned 
for  this  extraordinary  occurrence.  The  answer  is  two 
fold.  To  be  convinced  of  the  truth  of  a  fact,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  I  should  know  the  cause  of  its  existence, 
it  suffices  for  me  to  know  the  existence  of  the  fact  it- 
self, and  its  existence  will  not  be  the  less  certain  though 
I  should  never  be  able  to  discover  the  cause.  How 
many  facts  do  we  every  day  witness,  whose  causes  are 
still  to  us  inaccessible  and  undiscovered.  Next;  an 
adequate  cause  is  here  distinctly  pointed  out  and  re- 
ferred to.  He  who  first  breathed  into  the  nostrils  of 
man,  whom  he  fashioned  from  the  dust,  a  living  soul,  is 
now  equally  powerful  to  call  back  the  departed  spirit 
to  its  mouldering  tenement  of  clay. 

In  the  Mosaic, — in  the  Christian  dispensation,  what 
multitudes  of  miraculous  facts  attest  the  presence  of  the 
Deity?  the  revelations  of  heaven?  During  what  a 
length  of  time  were  not  those  facts  open  to  every  spe- 
cies of  examination?  How  favourable  were  the  cir- 
cumstances for  the  detection  of  imposition,  for  the 
exposure  of  fanaticism,  for  the  ridicule  of  folly,  if  the 
impostor,  the  fanatic,  or  the  fool  had  claimed  to  be  the 
messenger  of  heaven?  Thus  we  believe  that  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  instructed  man  in  the  doc- 
trines of  truth,  had  authority  to  prescribe  laws  of  mo- 
rality, and  founded  institutions  to  which  we  are  reli- 
giously bound  unalterably  to  adhere.  If  the  miraculous 
facts,  which  establish  this  conclusion,  are  not  in  full  , 
evidence,  I,  for  one,  must  profess  that  I  must  blot  from 
my  mind  all  that  I  have  been  ever  led  to  believe  was  a 
fact  of  history. 

A  peculiarity  of  our  religion  is,  that  we  may  at  any 
moment  risk  its  truth  or  falsehood  upon  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  the  statement  of  any  one  or  the  whole  of  a 
vast  variety  of  facts.  We  know  nothing  of  speculation, 
we  know  nothing  of  opinion.     Opinions  form  no  part  of 


25 

our  religion.  It  is  all  a  statement  of  facts,  and  tlie 
truth  of  those  facts  can  at  any  moment  be  brought  to 
the  test  With  this  we  stand  or  fall.  Allow  me  to 
adduce  one  fact  as  an  instance  and  an  illustration. 

The  founder  of  our  church,  the  Saviour  of  the  world, 
foretold  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  that  not  a 
stone  should  be  left  upon  another  of  the  mighty  mass 
of  the  splendid  temple.  One  of  our  prophets  foretold 
thai  upon  the  establishment  of  the  new  law  which  we 
profess,  the  sacrifice  should  cease,  and  never  be  restor- 
ed in  that  temple.  The  sacrifice  did  cease — the  city 
was  sacked, — the  temple  was  destroyed: — the  Chris- 
tians proclaimed  that  the  temple  would  never  be  re- 
built, the  sacrifice  would  never  be  restored.  'JMie 
Roman  emperor  Julian,  having  apostatized  from  the 
faith,  was  determined  to  humble  the  church  from  which 
he  had  deserted,  and,  by  establishing  one  fact  to  defeat 
their  prophecy,  to  prove  the  delusion  of  the  Naza- 
reaus  or  Galileans,  as  he  ternjed  the  Christians.  With 
the  wealth  of  the  Roman  empire,  the  power  of  his 
sceptre,  the  influence  of  his  ])lace,  and  the  devotion  of 
the  most  zealous  people  under  heaven,  he  made  the 
attempt.  The  whole  Jewish  people  animated  with 
love  of  country  and  of  religion,  cheered  by  their  neigh- 
bours, urged  on  by  their  emperor,  flattered  by  his 
court,  undertook  the  work,  they  rooted  up  the  old 
foundations  of  the  temple,  until  indeed  there  was  not 
left  a  stone  upon  a  stone;  they  prepared  to  rebuild, 
but  history  testifies  their  disappointment.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  a  bishop  of  our  church,  and  Ammianus 
Marcellirius  the  emperor's  historian,  a  Christian  and  a 
pcigan,  together  with  a  cloud  of  other  witnesses,  inform 
us  of  their  discomfiture.  Centuries  have  elapsed. 
The  prophecy  and  the  attempt  are  both  on  record. 
To-day  we  say,  as  our  predecessors  said  then,  "Build 
that  temple,  otter  one  sacrifice  accoiding  to  the  Mosaic 
rites  within  its  walls,  and  we  acknowledge  our  delu- 
sion.'' But  we  cannot,  for  any  speculative  opinions  of 
philosophers,  abandon  the  evidence  of  miracles,  of  pro- 
phecy, and  of  history  united. 
4 


26 

My  brethren,  I  come  now  to  a  new  part  of  my  sub- 
ject. We  have  seen  that  our  blessed  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  made  a  revelation  to  the  human  race:  our  next 
and  very  natural  inquiry  must  be,  to  discover  how  we 
shall  ascertain  what  that  revelation  is.  This  is  the 
place  where  we  arrive  at  the  essential  distinction  be- 
tween the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  every  other:  it 
is,  indeed,  upon  this  question  the  whole  difference  turns; 
and  to  this  it  must  be  always  brought  back.  The  doc- 
trine, which,  as  a  prelate  of  that  church,  and  from  my 
own  conscientious  conviction,  I  preach,  differs  very 
widely  indeed  from  what  is  generally  professed  and  act- 
ed upon  by  the  great  majority  of  our  citizens,  and  by 
a  vast  portion  of  the  respectable  and  enlightened  as- 
semblage by  which  1  am  surrounded.  I  shall  state  our 
doctrine  fully  upon  this  head;  but  I  do  not  feel  that  it 
would  be  correct,  or  delicate  on  my  part,  to  enter  upon 
the  field  of  polemics  for  its  vindication.  Still  it  will  be 
permitted  that  1  shall  give  an  outline,  imperfect  and 
defective  it  must  be,  for  the  cause  which  I  have  assign- 
ed, of  the  reasons  for  that  Faith  which  is  in  us. 

And  here  let  me  assure  you,  that  if,  in  the  course  of 
my  observations,  any  expression  should  escape  from  me 
that  may  appear  calculated  to  wound  the  feelings  of 
those  from  whom  I  differ,  that  it  is  not  my  intention  to 
assail,  to  insult,  or  to  give  pain;  and  that  I  may  be  par- 
doned for  what  will  be  in  truth  an  inconsiderate  expres- 
sion, not  intended  to  offend.  Neither  my  own  feelings, 
nor  my  judgment,  nor  my  faith,  would  dictate  to  me  any 
thuig  Ciilculated  to  embitter  the  feelings  of  those  who 
differ  from  me — merely  for  that  difference.  My  kifid-^ 
est  friends;  my  most  intimate  acquaintance;  those  whom 
I  do,  and  ought  to  esteeui  and  respect,  are  at  variance 
with  my  crted;  yet  it  does  not  and  shall  not  destrpy 
our  offtctions.  In  me  it  would  he  ingratitude;  for  I 
must  avow,  and  1  do  it  niost  willingly,  that  in  my  jour- 
neys tlsroiigh  our  states  I  have  been  Irequently  humbled 
and  abashed  at  the  kindntss  with  which  I  have  been 
treated.  I  came  amongst  sou  a  stranger,  and  1  went 
through  your  land  with  many  and  most  serious,  and  un- 


S7 

Ibrtiinate  mistakes,  for  which  you  were  not  blaineahle, 
operating  to  my  disadvantage.  If  a  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  was  in  truth,  what  he  is  even  now  generally  sup- 
posed to  he,  in  various  parts  of  this  Union,  he  should 
not  be  permitted  to  reside  amongst  you;  yet  was  I  re- 
ceived into  your  houses,  enrolled  in  your  families,  and 
profited  by  yonr  kindness — I  have  frequently  put  the 
question  to  myself,  whether  if  I  had  similar  impressions 
regarding  you  I  could  have  acted  with  the  like  kind- 
ness; and  I  must  own,  I  frequently  doubted  that  I  would. 
It  is  true,  you  laboured  under  serious  mistakes  as  to 
what  was  my  religion,  and  what  were  my  duties  and  my 
obligations.  But  you  were  not  yourselves  the  cause  of 
those  mistakes;  nor  had  you  within  your  reach  the 
means  of  correcting  them.  I  feel  grateful  to  my  friends 
who  have  afforded  me  this  opportunity  of  perhaps  aid- 
ing to  do  away  those  impressions;  for  our  allections  will 
be  more  strong  as  those  mistakes  will  be  corrected;  and 
it  must  gratify  those,  who,  loving  the  country,  behold 
us  spread  through  it,  to  be  assured,  that  we  are  not 
those  vile  beings  that  have  been  painted  to  their  ima- 
ginations, and  which  ought  not  to  be  allowed  existence 
in  any  civilized  community. 

Upon  our  principles,  my  brethren,  we  must  not  spe- 
culate; we  must  always  keep  our  eye  steadily  upon 
facts.  The  wisest  man  might  be  misled  in  speculation; 
might  make  great  mistakes  in  forming  opinions;  but  if 
he  has  evidence  of  a  fact,  he  has  ground  upon  which  he 
can  rest  with  certainty;  and  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  that  fact  produces  certainty  also:  let  us  then  look  for 
facts,  instead  of  hazarding  conjectures  or  maintaining 
opinions. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  our  blessed  Redeemer  did  not  write 
his  communications:  it  is  equally  certain,  that  he  neither 
gave  a  command,  nor  a  commission,  to  have  them  writ- 
ten. It  is  a  fact,  that  his  religion  was  fully  and  exten- 
sively established  before  any  part  of  the  scriptures  of 
our  new  law  was  committed  to  writing.  We,  therefore, 
believe  it  to  be  evident  that  our  religion  was  not  estab- 
lished by  the  disseniination  of  writings. 


as 

We  have  abundant  testimony  to  shew  that  our  bles- 
sed  Redeemer,  besides  having  publickly  taught  the 
people,  selected  a  few  persons  whom  he  more  fully  in- 
structed, and  duly  authorized  to  teach  also.  They 
were  his  companions  during  life,  and  after  his  death 
they  were  the  promulgators  of  his  doctrine.  Their 
commission  from  him  was  not  to  become  philosof)hers, 
discussing  what  was  probably  the  nature  of  God  and 
the  obligation  of  man,  and  examining  what  means  they 
would  esteem  to  be  most  likely  to  lead  mankind  to 
eternal  happiness;  but  they  were  constituted  witnesses 
to  others,  to  testify  what  the  Saviour  revealed  to  them, 
and  to  speak  of  positive  facts  with  undoubting  certain- 
ty,— and  to  state  what  he  actually  told,  what  he  pre- 
cisely commanded,  what  he  positively  instituted,  and 
for  what  purpose,  and  what  were  to  be  the  conse- 
quences,— all  this  was  matter  of  fact  testified  by  wit- 
nesses, not  discovered  by  disquisitions  of  philosophy. 
They  were  not  to  add,  they  were  not  to  diminish,  they 
were  not  to  change;  the  perfection  of  the  revelation 
consisted  in  preserving  the  account  purely  uiichange  1. 
We  find  the  fact  of  the  addition  of  others  to  the  com- 
mission of  teachers,  the  very  nature  of  the  case  exhibit- 
ed the  necessity  of  such  addition,  because  the  original 
commissioners  would  not  suflice  for  the  multitude  to  be 
taught.  Natural  reason  pointed  out  the  course  which 
testimony  shews  us  was  followed.  They  who  were 
originally  constituted  by  the  Redeemer  as  the  teaching 
tribunal,  selected  those  whom  they  found  best  instruct- 
ed, and  being  satisfied  of  their  integrity,  by  the  tes- 
timony of  those  who  had  long  known  them,  they  were 
themselves  judges  of  their  full  acquaintarice  with  the 
truths  which  were  to  be  taught,  and  of  their  ability; 
they  ordained  them  as  fellow  witnesses,  extended  to 
them  the  power  of  the  commission,  and  thus  in  every 
city  were  chosen  faithful  men,  who  might  be  fit  to  teach 
others  that  form  of  sound  words  which  had  been  com- 
mitted to  themselves  before  many  witnesses;  those 
people  who  heard  their  first  teachers  were  also  capable 
of  observing  if  any  deviation  had  been  made  by  their 


successors.  Those  first  teachers  and  their  associates 
were  scattered  abroad  widely  through  the  world,  hut 
in  all  places  they  taught  the  same  things,  for  truth  could 
not  he  contradictory.  Some  persons  sought  after 
novelties,  and  separated  from  the  great  body  which 
remained  united  in  government  and  iit  doctrine,  though 
widely  scattered  through  the  world.  Those  isolated 
and  indcpfMident  div  sions  followed  each  some  theory  of 
its  own,  having  some  pecidiarity  by  which  each  was 
disvinguished  from  the  other,  each  judging  at)d  de- 
ciding for  itself,  and  each  claiming  to  have  preserved 
the  true  doctrine.  This  state  of  things  existed  almost 
at  the  very  origin  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  has 
since  continued  more  or  less  extensively.  It  was  not 
until  the  eighth  year  after  the  ascension  of  our  Lord, 
or  the  year  41  of  our  era,  that  the  first  part  of  the 
New  Testament  was  written  by  St.  Matthew,  who  vvas 
one  of  the  earliest  companions  of  the  Saviour  and  an 
apostle.  Many  of  the  Christians  had  committed  to 
writing  several  facts  and  discourses  which  they  had 
learned.  Many  of  their  accounts  contained  much  that 
has  never  reached  us.  Some  years  afterwards,  St. 
Mark,  who  was  not  an  apostle,  but  who  was  a  com- 
panion of  St.  Peter,  the  president  of  the  Apostolic 
body,  first  in  honor  and  first  in  jurisdiction,  abridged 
much  of  what  St.  Matthew  had  written,  and  added 
much  of  his  own,  which  he  had  probably  learned  from 
St.  Peter;  those  books  had  a  limited  circulation  amongst 
the  Christians  in  some  places,  but  highly  as  they  were 
valued,  they  were  not  looked  upon  as  the  exclusive 
evidence  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Redeemer,  and  the 
very  fact,  which  is  of  course  incontestible,  that  a  vast 
quantity  of  what  we  all  now  receive  as  his  doctrine  is 
not  contained  in  them  but  was  subsequently  written, 
renders  it  impossible  for  any  of  us  to  assume  this  prin- 
ciple. In  the  year  o3  of  our  era,  St.  Luke,  who  was  a 
physician  in  Antioch,  and  who  had  been  occasionally 
a  compfinion  of  St.  Paul,  and  had  conversed  with  many 
of  the  other  disciples  and  apostles,  began  to  write  his 
(lospel  from  the  accounts  collected  through  others,  and 


30 

chiefly  to  counteract  the  circulation  of  many  erroneous 
accounts  which  were  written;  he  proliably  had  not  seen 
cither  of  the  two  Gospels  written  by  Matthew  or  Mark. 
About  ten  years  after  this,  he  wrote  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  as  a  continuation  of  his  history,  and  in  it  he 
principally  confines  himself  to  the  account  of  the  labours 
of  St.  Paul,  as  he  was  his  companion  and  had  the  op- 
portunity of  observing  his  proceedings.  Upwards  of 
thirty  years  more  elapsed  before  St.  John  wrote  his 
Gospel  at  the  request  of  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor, 
in  order  to  testify  against  the  errors  of  several  persons 
who  then  troubled  those  churches  with  their  speculations 
and  imaginations.  He  had  previously  written  his  book 
of  Revelations,  being  an  obscure  prophecy  of  some  fu- 
ture events  blended  with  history  and  vision.  He  had 
written  some  Epistles  to  churches  and  to  individuals  on 
particular  occasions.  St.  Paul,  in  the  discharge  of  his 
duties,  had  been  sometimes  consulted  tipon  particu- 
lar questions,  by  churches  which  he  had  founded  or 
visited;  and  some  of  his  Epistles  are  extant,  in  which  he 
answers  their  difficulties,  gives  them  instruction  suita- 
ble to  their  circumstances,  and  makes  several  regula- 
tions. He  also  wrote  on  other  occasions  to  churches 
and  to  individuals,  as  did  three  or  four  of  the  other 
Apostles;  some  of  those  letters  remain;  we  are  inform- 
ed, and  think  it  not  unlikely,  that  many  more  have 
been  lost. 

Thus,  during  the  first  century,  it  is  a  fact,  that  no 
such  book  as  we  now  receive  as  the  New  Testament, 
was  used  or  adopted  in  the  church  as  the  mode  of  each 
individual  or  each  church  ascertaining  what  was  the 
doctrine  of  Christ.  The  several  portions  of  which  it 
is  composed  had  been  written,  and  were  used,  but  they 
were  not  collected  together,  and  very  probably  no  in- 
dividual had  a  copy  of  each.  But  those  w^ere  not  the 
only  books  of  the  same  description  which  circulated, 
for  there  were  very  many  others  purporting  to  be  gos- 
pels and  epistles;  and  it  would  indeed  be  very  difficult 
for  any  individual  who  desired  to  know  the  doctrine  of 


31 

the  Redeemer,  to  discover  it  from  books  in  such  a  state 
of  things. 

Another  fact  is  also  ohvioua — that  in  this  century  the 
apostles,  and  most  of  those  whom  they  had  associated 
with  them  in  their  commission,  died.  During  their  lives, 
they  were  the  teachers  of  the  doctrine;  they  testified 
wiMt  Christ  had  taught,  and  it  was  by  reference  to  their 
tribun- 1  it  was  ascertained.  But  a  question  here  natural- 
ly presents  itself  to  us.  Should  a  difference  of  testimo- 
ny be  found  amongst  those  teachers,  it  is  very  evident 
that  one  of  them  must  have,  to  say  the  least,  made  a 
mistake:  how  was  an  Honest  inquirer  after  truth  to  know 
what  God  has  revealed?  It  is  plain,  we  say,  that 
truth  and  error  must  exist  in  such  a  case,  however  in- 
nocent the  erring  party  might  be.  And  unless  there 
was  a  very  plain  and  simple  mode  of  detecting  that 
error,  he  who  gave  the  revelation  would  not  have  pro- 
vided for  its  preservation.  And  as  this  difference  not 
only  niight  exist,  but  did  actually  occur  at  a  very  early 
pel  iod  wltliin  this  same  century,  the  evidence  of  truth 
would  have  been  lost  in  the  (lifTerence  of  testimony, 
and  revelation  would  have  been  made  useless,  almost 
as  soon -as  it  had  been  given.  We  say,  that  the  com- 
mon rule  of  evidence  from  testimony  would  have  been 
suflic'ient,  when  properly  applied,  to  have  detected  the 
error.  That  rule  is:  examine  the  witnesses  fully  as  to 
the  fact,  and  if  the  vast  majority,  under  proper  circum- 
stances, will  agree  in  their  testimony,  it  is  the  evidence 
of  truth.  Our  history  exhibits  to  us,  in  the  lifetime  of 
the  apostles,  the  facts  of  the  difference,  the  examination 
and  the  decision  by  this  rule;  and  also  the  further  fact, 
that  they  who  would  not  al)ide  by  the  decision,  were 
no  longer  consiiiered  as  holding  the  doctrine  which  had 
been  revealed,  hut  as  making  new  opinions,  and  sub- 
stituting what  they  thought  ought  to  be,  instead  of 
preserving  what  had  always  been.  We  then  find  those 
who  continued  to  testify  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles 
holding  together  with  them,  recognized  as  joined  in 
thtir  commission,  and  authorized  also  to  extend  and  to 
perpetuate  the  same.     Thus,  although  the  apostk"^  and 


32 

their  associates  died  within  this  century,  still  that  tri- 
bunal  of  which  they  were  the  first  members  survived, 
and  at  the  end  of  this  period  was  far  more  numerous 
and  much  more  widely  extended  through  the  world; 
and  it  was  to  this  tribunal  recourse  was  had  to  ascer- 
tain what  was  the  doctrine  of  our  blessed  Redeemer. 
Originally  this  tribunal  consisted  of  Peter  and  his  as- 
sociates, the  other  apostles — now  it  consisted  of  the 
successor  of  Peter  and  the  successors  of  the  other 
apostles,  and  of  their  associates  through  the  world. 

No  king  could  say  that  he  would  regulate  the  doc- 
trines for  his  people:  no  nation  had  authority  to  modi- 
fy those  doctrines  for  themselves.  The  perfection  of 
religion  consists  in  preserving  the  doctrines  such  as 
they  have  been  given  by  God  in  revelation.  The  dif- 
ference of  temporal  government  cannot  alter  what  he 
has  said.  Thus,  they  formed  but  one  chur^^.h  through 
many  nations — one  tribunal  to  testify  in  every  place  the 
same  doctrine — all  the  individuals  who  taught,  were 
witnesses  for  or  against  each  other: — the  whole  body, 
with  the  successor  of  Peter  at  its  head,  watchful  to  see 
that  each  taught  that  which  was  originally  delivered. 

In  the  second  century  the  same  system  continues; 
similar  facts  present  themselves  to  our  view;  the  mode 
of  ascertaining  what  Christ  had  taught  was,  by  the  de- 
clarations of  this  permanent  body,  thus  continued.  The 
books  of  the  New  Testament  were,  perhaps,  better 
known  and  more  generally  read,  but  their  circulation 
was  comparatively  limited,  their  authority  not  suffi- 
ciently developed,  and  they  were  by  no  means  consi- 
dered as  the  sole  source  from  which  individuals,  or  even 
congregations,  could  draw  a  full  knowledge  of  the  reve- 
lations of  the  Saviour.  It  was  not  until  after  the  lapse 
of  three  centuries  that  the  members  of  the  living  tritiu- 
nal,  which  had  always  been  the  witnesses  of  doc- 
trine, selected  the  books  which  form  the  New  Testa- 
ment from  the  various  other  works  of  a  similar  descrip- 
tion, which  had  been  very  freely  disseminated;  and  we 
have  full  evidence  of  this  plain  fact,  that  this  tribunal 
had   been   the   authoritative   witness  of  the   revealed 


33 

truths  from  the  beginning,  and  that  it  was  only  after  a 
long  lapse  of  time  that  body  separated  what  we  have, 
as  the  scriptures  of  the  new  law  from  several  spurious 
works  of  little  or  no  value,  some  of  them  false  and  j)er- 
nicious.  And  our  belief  is,  that  the  moue  of  ascertain- 
ing the  doctrine  of  truth  originally  was,  and  continued 
to  be,  by  the  testimony  of  that  tribunal,  rather  than  by 
the  testimony  of  those  books. 

What  would  be  the  authority  of  those  books,  without 
the  authority  of  that  tribunal?  Bring  any  written  do- 
cument into  any  court  of  justice,  lay  it  on  the  table; 
what  will  it  prove?  Will  you  not  first  produce  evi- 
dence to  show  what  it  is?  You  must  prove  by  the  tes- 
timony of  some  competent  witness,  the  nature  and  au- 
thenticity of  a  written  document,  before  that  written 
document  can  be  used.  Without  having  been  thus  es- 
tablished, it  lies  useless  before  the  court;  it  might  be 
what  it  purports  to  be,  but  it  is  plain  that  a  written  or 
printed  book  might  not  be  what  it  assumes  in  its  title; 
a  document  flung  upon  the  table  of  a  court  lies  there 
without  any  use,  until  it  is  made  useful  by  testimony 
besides  itself.  The  record  of  a  court  must  be  proved 
by  the  oflicer  of  that  court;  fictions  and  forgeries  are 
as  easily  printed  or  produced  as  are  the  genuine  state- 
ments of  truth;  and  it  does  not  derogate  from  the  value 
of  a  genuine  document  to  say  that  it  needs  first  to  be 
proved,  for  no  document  can  prove  itself. 

Our  doctrine  then  is,  that  in  all  cases  of  diflerence 
as  to  faith,  between  the  commissioned  teachers  of  the 
church,  or  in  any  such  differences  between  otherj,  the 
mode  originally  used  will  procure  for  us  evidence  of 
trutii.  The  question  never  can  be  respecting  opinion, 
it  must  always  be  concerning  fact:  that  fact  is  what  God 
did  reveal.  Th--  original  witnesses  spread  through  the 
world  testified  this  fact  to  their  associates  and  to  their 
successors;  this  testimony  was  thus  continued.  In  the 
second  or  third  century  the  bishop  in  Greece  could  tes- 
tify what  had  been  transmitted  to  him;  the  Parthian 
bishoj)  gave  his  testimony;  the  Egypti.in  added  his;  the 
Italian  told  what  he  had  been  taught;  their  agreement 
5 


34 

eould  Tjot  have  been  the  effect  of  accident:  the  prejudi- 
ces, the  national  habits,  and  the  thousand  accidental 
differences  of  each,  made  them  sufficiently  watchful  of 
each  other:  their  joint  and  concurrent  testimony  must 
have  been  full  proof  cf  the  sameness  of  the  testimony  of 
their  predecessors,  until  all  met  in  the  apostles  who 
heard  it  from  Jesus  Christ.  We  say,  that  when  the 
great  majority  of  the  bishops  united  with  their  head 
the  bishop  of  Rome,  who  succeeds  to  Peter,  thus  concur 
in  their  testimony  it  is  evidence  of  truth:  we  will  in- 
fallibly come  to  a  certain  knowledge  of  what  God  has 
revealed.  This  is  our  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of 
the  church:  and  thus  we  believe  that  we  will  ascertain 
what  Christ  taught,  by  the  testimony  of  the  majority  of 
the  bishops  united  to  their  head,  whether  assembled  or 
dispersed  through  their  sees,  all  over  the  world. 

Others  may  be  of  opinion,  that  this  is  an  irrational — 
that  this  is  an  incorrect,  that  this  is  an  insufficient 
mode.  We  do  not  view  it  in  that  light:  and  1  may  be 
permitted  to  say  for  myself,  perhaps  it  might  be  deemed 
prejudice;  perhaps  a  weakness  of  intellect,  or  a  slavery 
of  mind;  to  me  it  appears  a  much  better  mode  of  attain- 
ing its  great  object  than  to  take  up  the  scriptures  and 
decide  solely  for  myself;  better  than  to  depend  upon 
the  authority  of  any  individual,  however  learned  or  pi- 
ous, or  inspiied  with  heavenly  knowledge  he  might  be 
deemed.  1  am  not  infallible;  but  in  virtue  of  my  place 
I  give  my  testimony;  I  may  err,  but  the  majority  of  my 
brethren  will  correct  that  error.  A  few  others  may 
err;  still  the  testimony  of  the  majority  prevails — thus 
individuals  may  separate  from  us,  but  our  unity  and  our 
testimony  remains.  We  do  not  profess  to  believe  our 
Pope  infallible.  We  believe,  that  by  virtue  of  the  di- 
vine appointment,  he  presides  amongst  us,  but  we  are 
fellow  witnesses  with  him. 

But  this  power  of  decision  is  by  its  own  nature  ex- 
tremely limited.  We  are  witnesses  to  our  brethren, 
not  despots  ov<  r  men's  minds.  Our  testimony  must 
be  confined  to  what  has  been  revealed;  we  cannot  add, 
we  cannot  diminish.     Such  is  the  duty  of  a  witness, 


such  is  ours.  All  the  popes  and  bishops,  all  th^  coun- 
cils which  have  ever  existed,  or  which  may  exist,  have 
not,  and  cannot  have  the  power  of  commanding  the 
humblest  individual  to  believe  one  particle  more  on 
the  subject  of  revelation,  than  what  they  tes'ify  God 
to  have  tauj^ht.  When  they  exhibit  what  has  been 
taught  by  heaven,  man  is  bound  to  believe;  let  them 
say,  ''besides  this  which  God  has  revealed,  we  are  of 
opinion  that  you  would  do  well  to  believe  this,  which 
he  has  not  taught,  but  which  we  think  a  very  good 
doctrine."  He  is  free  to  act  as  he  may  think  proper, 
his  belief  would  not  be  faith,  it  would  be  receiving  the 
opinions  of  men,  not  the  teaching  of  heaven;  this  mode 
of  teaching  is  never  used  in  our  church.  The  de- 
cisions of  our  councils,  are  the  exhibition  of  the  origi- 
nal revelation,  not  the  expressions  of  adopted  opinions: 
so  too,  the  whole  body  of  our  church  cannot  omit  to 
teach  any  revealed  truth;  she  must  teach  all;  she  must 
be  a  faithful  witness;  neither  adding,  omitting  or 
changing. 

In  our  mode  of  examining,  although  we  believe  the 
founder  of  our  church  made  a  promise  of  his  divine 
guidance  to  protect  our  body  from  erring,  we  take  all 
the  Urttural  means  which  will  aid  in  the  discovery  of  the 
original  fact.  We  not  only  have  known  the  testimony 
of  those  from  whom  we  learned,  and  that  of  those  with 
whom  we  associate;  but  we  have  the  records  of  our 
churches,  we  have  the  documents  of  antiquity;  we 
have  the  writings  of  our  ancient  and  venerable  and 
eminent  bishops  and  doctors,  coming  from  every  age 
and  from  every  nation.  We  have  the  decisions  of 
former  councils,  we  have  the  monuments  which  have 
been  erected,  the  usages  which  have  prevailed,  the 
customs  which  continue,  and  when  we  take  up  the 
sacred  volume  of  the  scriptures,  we  collate  its  pas- 
sages with  the  results  which  we  gather  from  those 
sources.  The  prelates  of  our  several  nations  make 
this  examination  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  each 
testifies  what  he  has  found  in  conjunction  with  those 
of  his  vicinity  who  could  aid  him  in  his  research,  and 


36 

thus  we  obtain  testimony  of  the  world  respecting  facts 
in  which  the  world  is  deeply  interested.  Can  it  be 
slavery  in  me  to  bow  to  the  decision  of  this  tribunal? 
Frequently  questions  which  have  been  long  since  de- 
cided in  this  manner  are  revived.  Our  answer  in  those 
cases  is  very  short.  "This  has  been  already  deter- 
mined.'' We  are  told  this  is  limiting  the  operations 
and  chaining  down  the  freedom  of  the  human  mind. 
Perhaps  it  is.  But  if  the  proper  use  of  the  faculties 
be  the  discovery  of  truth,  and  that  truth  has  been 
already  discovered,  what  more  is  necessary?  When 
investigations  have  been  made,  and  results  arrived  at, 
why  investigate  still?  You  go  into  court  to  defend 
your  property,  you  have  your  titles  fally  investigated, 
judgment  is  given  in  your  favor,  it  is  put  upon  record; 
a  new  litigant  Cfllls  you  to  go  over  the  same  ground, 
will  not  the  record  of  the  judgment  against  his  fa- 
ther protect  you?  Or  must  you,  because  he  chooses  to 
trouble  you,  burn  that  record,  and  join  issue  again? 
W^e  quote  the  decisions  of  former  times  as  proofs  that 
investigation  has  been  already  made,  and  that  a  deci- 
sion has  long  since  been  had.  And  what  has  once  been 
found  to  have  been  revealed  by  God,  cannot  by  any 
lapse  of  time  cease  to  be  revelation:  if  the  fact  shall 
have  been  once  fully  proved,  that  proof  must  be  good 
always — if  a  record  thereof  be  made,  that  record  is 
always  evidence. 

A  political  difficulty  has  been  sometimes  raised  here. 
If  this  infallible  tribunal  which  you  profess  yourselves 
bound  to  obey,  should  command  you  to  overturn  our 
government,  and  tell  you  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  to 
have  it  new  modelled,  will  you  not  be  bound  to  obey 
it?  And  how  then  can  we  consider  those  men  to  be 
good  citizens,  who  profess  to  owe  obedience  to  a 
foreign  authority,  to  an  authority  not  recognized  in 
our  constitution;  to  an  authority  which  has  excommu- 
nicated and  deposed  sovereigns,  and  which  has  absolv- 
ed subjects  and  citizens  from  their  bond  of  allegiance? 

Our  answer  to  this  is  extremely  simple  and  very 
plain,  it  is,  that  we  would  not  be  bound  to  obey  it;  that 


ay 

wc  recoirnize  no  such  authority.  I  would  not  allow  to 
the  pope  or  to  any  hishop  of  our  church,  outside  this 
Union,  the  sninllest  interference  with  the  humhiest  vote 
at  our  most  insignificant  biilloting  box.  He  has  no 
tight  to  sucli  interference.  You  must  from  the  view 
wnich  I  h;ive  taken,  '^ee  the  pUiin  distinction  between 
spiritual  authority,  and  a  right  to  interfere  in  the  re- 
guhition  of  human  government  or  civil  concerns. 
You  have  in  your  constitution  wisely  kept  them  dis- 
tinct and  separate.  It  will  be  wisdom  and  prudence 
and  safety  to  continue  the  separation.  Your  constitu- 
tion says  that  Congress  shall  have  no  power  to  restrict 
tlie  free  exercise  of  religion.  Suppose  your  dignified 
body  to-morrow  attempted  to  restrict  me  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  that  right;  though  the  law,  as  it  would  be 
called,  should  pass  your  two  houses  and  obtain  the 
signature  of  the  president,  I  would  not  obey  it,  because 
it  would  be  no  law,  it  would  be  an  usurpation:  for  you 
cannot  make  a  law  in  violation  of  your  constitution:  voii 
have  no  power  in  such  a  case.  So,  if  that  tribun.il 
which  is  established  by  the  Creator  to  testify  to  me 
what  he  has  revealed,  and  to  make  the  necessary  rc- 
gulati'.iiis  of  discipline  for  the  government  of  the  church, 
shall  |)resume  to  go  beyond  that  boundary  which  cir- 
cumscribes its  power,  its  acts  are  invalid,  my  rights 
are  not  to  be  destroyed  by  its  usurpation,  and  there  is 
no  principle  of  my  creed  which  prevents  my  using  my 
natural  right  of  proper  resistance  to  any  tyrannical 
usurpation.  You  have  no  power  to  interfere  with  my 
religious  rights,  the  tiibunal  of  the  church  has  no 
power  to  interfere  with  my  civil  rights.  It  is  a  duty 
which  every  good  man  ought  to  discharge  for  his  own, 
and  for  the  public  benefit,  to  resist  any  encroaciiment 
upon  either.  We  do  not  believe  that  God  gave  to  the 
church  any  j)Ower  to  interfere  with  our  civil  rights,  or 
our  civil  concerns.  Christ  our  Lord  refused  to  inter- 
fere in  the  division  of  the  inheritance  between  two 
brothers,  one  of  whom  recpicsted  that  interference. 
The  civil  tribunals  of  Judea  were  vested  with  suflicient 
authority  for  that  j)urpose,  and  he  aid  not  transfer  it 


38 

to  his  apostles.  It  must  hence  be  apparent  that  any 
idea  of  the  Roman  Catholics  of  those  republics  being 
in  any  way  under  the  influence  of  any  foreign  eccle- 
siastical power,  01  indeed  of  any  church  authority  in 
the  exercise  of  their  civil  rights,  is  a  serious  mistake. 
There  is  no  class  of  our  fellow  citizens  more  free  to 
think,  and  to  act  for  themselves  on  the  subject  of  our 
rights  than  we  are,  and  I  believe  there  is  not  any  portion 
of  the  American  family  more  jealous  of  foreign  in- 
fluence, or  more  ready  to  resist  it.  We  have  brethren 
of  our  church  in  every  part  of  the  globe,  under  every 
form  of  government,  this  is  a  subject  upon  which 
each  of  us  is  free  to  act  as  he  thinks  proper.  VVe 
know  of  no  tribunal  in  our  church  which  can  interfere 
in  our  proceedings  as  citizens.  Our  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority existed  before  our  constitution,  is  not  affected 
by  it,  there  is  not  in  the  world  a  constitution  which 
it  does  not  precede,  with  which  it  could  not  co-exist, 
it  has  seen  nations  perish,  dynasties  decay,  empires 
prostrate;  it  has  eo-existed  with  all,  it  has  survived 
them  all,  it  is  not  dependent  upon  any  governments; 
they  may  change,  and  it  will  still  continue. 

It  is  again  urged  that  at  least  our  church  is  aristo- 
cratic if  not  despotic  in  its  principles,  and  is  not  cal- 
culated for  a  republic,  that  its  spirit  is  opposed  to  that 
of  republicanism.  This  objection  cannot  be  seriously 
urged  by  any  person  who  has  studied  history,  nor  by 
any  person  who  is  acquainted  with  our  tenets.  Look 
over  the  history  of  the  world  since  the  establishment 
of  Christianity,  and  where  have  there  been  republics? 
Have  the  objectors  read  the  history  of  Italy?  A  soil 
fertile  in  republics,  and  most  devoted  to  our  religion! 
What  was  the  religion  of  William  Tell?  He  was  a 
Roman  Catholic.  Look  not  only  to  the  Swiss  repub- 
lics, but  take  San-Marino,  this  little  state,  during  cen- 
turies the  most  splendid  specimen  of  the  purest  demo- 
cracy, and  this  democracy  protected  by  our  Popes 
during  those  centuries.  Men  who  make  the  assertions 
to  which  I  have  alluded  cannot  have  read  history! 
Amongst  ourselves,  what  is  the  religion  of  the  vener- 


S9 

able  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton?  Men  who  make 
these  assertions  cannot  have  read  our  Declaration  of 
Independence.  What  was  the  religion  of  the  good, 
the  estimable,  the  beloved  Doctor  Carroll,  our  first 
Catholic  Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  the  founder  of  our 
hierarchy,  the  friend  of  Washington,  the  associate  of 
Franklin?  Have  those  men  been  degraded  in  our 
church  because  they  aided  in  your  struggle  for  the 
assertion  of  your  rights,  for  the  establishment  of  our 
glorious  and  our  happy  republics?  No;  they  are  the 
jewels  which  we  prize,  the  ornaments  of  our  church, 
the  patriots  of  our  country.  They  and  others,  whom 
we  count  as  our  members  and  esteem  for  their  virtues, 
have  been  the  intimate  and  faithful  associates  of  many 
of  our  best  patriots  who  have  passed  from  our  transi. 
tory  scene,  and  of  some  who  yet  view  in  consolation 
our  prosperity.  What  is  the  religion  of  Simon 
Bolivar?  What  the  religion  of  the  whole  population 
of  our  republican  sisters  upon  the  Southern  Continent? 
We  are  always  assailed  by  speculation.  We  always 
answer  by  facts.  '  Have  we  been  found  traitors  in  your 
councils,  unfaithful  to  your  trust,  cowards  in  your 
fields,  or  in  correspondence  with  your  enemies?  Yet 
we  have  been  consulted  for  our  prudence,  confided  in 
for  our  fidelity,  enriched  your  soil  with  our  blood,  filled 
your  decks  with  our  energy,  and  though  some  of  us 
might  have  wept  at  leaving  the  land  of  our  ancestors 
because  of  the  injustice  of  its  rulers,  we  told  our  bro- 
thers who  assailed  you  in  the  day  of  battle  that  we 
knew  them  not,  and  we  adhered  to  those  who  gave  to 
us  a  pi  ice  of  refuge  and  impartial  protection.  Shall 
we  then  be  told  that  our  religion  is  not  the  religion 
calculated  for  republics,  though  it  will  be  found  that 
the  vast  majority  of  republican  states  and  of  republican 
patriots  have  been  and  Lven  now  are  Roman  Catholic? 
it  is  true,  ours  is  also  the  religion  of  a  large  portion  of 
empires,  and  of  kingdoms,  and  of  principalities.  The 
fact  is  so  lor  an  obvious  reason,  because  it  is  the  reli- 
gion of  the  great  bulk  of  the  civibzed  world.  Our 
tenets  do  not  proscril)e  any  form  of  government  which 


40 

the  people  may  properly  and  regularly  establish.  No 
revelation  upon  which  my  eye  has  fallen,  or  which  ever 
reached  my  ear,  has  taught  me  that  the  Almighty  God 
commanded  us  to  be  governed  by  kings,  or  by  empe- 
rors, or  by  princes,  or  to  associate  in  republics.  Upon 
this  God  has  left  us  free  to  make  our  own  selection. 
The  decision  upon  the  question  of  expediency  as  to  the 
form  of  government  for  temporal  or  civil  concerns,  is 
one  to  be  settled  by  society  and  not  by  the  church. 
We  therefore  bind  no  nation  or  people  to  any  special 
form,  the  form  which  they  may  adopt  lies  not  with  us 
but  with  themselves.  What  suits  the  genius  and  cir- 
cumstances of  one  people  might  be  totally  unfit  for 
another;  hence  no  special  form  of  human  government 
for  civil  concerns  has  been  generally  established  by 
divine  authority:  but  the  God  of  order  who  commands 
men  to  dwell  together  in  peace,  has  armed  the  govern- 
ment which  has  been  properly  established  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  society  with  power  for  the  discharge  of  the 
functions  which  are  given  by  society  to  its  administration; 
whilst  it  continues  within  its  due  bounds  to  discharge 
properly  its  constitutional  obligations  it  is  the  duty  of 
each  good  member  of  society  toconcur  in  its  support,  and 
he  who  would  resist  its  proper  authority  would  in  this 
case  resist  the  ordinance  of  the  God  of  peace  and  of  or- 
der, and,  as  the  apostle  says,  would  purchase  damnation 
for  himself.  This  principle  applies  alike  to  all  forms 
of  government  properly  established,  and  properly  ad- 
ministered, to  republics  and  to  kingdoms  alike.  It  is 
then  a  mistake  to  imagine  that  our  church  has  more 
congeniality  to  one  species  of  civil  government  than 
to  another;  it  has  been  fitted  b^  its  author,  who 
saw  the  fluctualiiig  state  of  civil  rule,  to  exist  inde- 
pendently of  any,  and  to  be  suited  to  either.  Its  own 
peculiar  forms  for  its  internal  regulation,  may  and  do 
continue  to  be  adhered  to  under  every  form  of  temporal 
rule. 

But  is  it  not  a  tenet  of  our  church  that  we  must 
persecute  all  those  who  differ  from  us?  Has  not  our 
religion  been  propagated  by  the  firebrand  and  by  the 


41 

• 

sword?  Is  not  the  Inquisition  one  of  its  component 
parts?  Arc  not  our  boasted  Sotilli  American  repub- 
lics persecutors  slill?  And  in  the  code  of  our  infal- 
lible church  have  we  not  canons  of  persecution  which 
we  are  conscientiously  bound  to  obey  and  to  enforce? 
Did  not  the  great  I-.ateran  Council  in  1215,  command 
all  princes  to  exterminate  all  heretics?  If  then  we  are 
not  persecutors  in  fact  it  is  because  we  want  the  power, 
for  it  is  plain  that  we  do  not  want  the  disposition. 

I  would  humbly  submit,  that  not  one  of  these  ques- 
tions could  be  truly  answered  in  the  aOirmative.  The 
spirit  of  I'eligion  is  that  of  peace  and  of  mercy;  not  that 
of  persecution:  yet  men  of  every  creed  have  persecuted 
their  brethren  under  the  pretext  of  religion.  The 
great  founder  of  our  church,  at  a  very  early  period, 
checked  this  spirit  in  his  apostles;  when  some  cities 
would  not  receive  his  doctrine,  they  asked,  why  he  did 
not  call  down  fire  from  heaven  to  destroy  them;  but  his 
calm  and  dignified  rebxike  was,  that  they  knew  not  by 
what  spirit  they  were  led:  it  was  the  spirit  of  human 
passion  assuming  the  garb  of  heavenly  zeal.  I  know 
of  no  powet"  given  by  (iod  to  any  man,  or  to  any  body 
of  men,  in  the  christian  dispensation,  to  inflict  any  pe- 
nalty of  a  temporal  description,  upon  their  fellow  men 
for  mere  religious  error.  If  such  error  shall  cause  the 
violation  of  peace,  or  shall  interfere  with  the  well  being 
of  society,  temporal  governments,  being  established  to 
prevent  such  disorders,  have  their  own  inherent  right, 
but  not  a  religious  commission,  to  interfere  merely  for 
that  prevention.  Each  individual  is  responsit)le  to  God 
for  his  conduct  in  this  regard;  to  him  and  to  him  only 
we  stand  or  fall.  He  commissioned  the  church  to 
teach  his  doctrine,  but  he  did  not  commission  her  to 
persecute  those  who  would  not  receive  it.  He  who 
beholds  the  evidence  of  truth  and  will  not  follow  it,  is 
inexcusable — he  who  will  not  use  his  best  exertions  to 
obtain  that  evidence,  is  inexcusable:  he  who  having  used 
his  best  exertions  for  that  purpose,  and  having  with  the 
best  intentions  made  a  mistake  in  coining  to  his  conclu- 
sion, is  not  a  criminal  because  of  that  mistake.  God 
6 


4^ 

alone,  the  searcher  of  our  hearts,  can  clearly  see  the  full 
accountability  of  each  individual  upon  this  head;  he- 
cause  each  person  must  be  accountable  according  to  his 
opportunities.  I  feel  that  many  and  serious  mistakes 
are  made  by  ray  friends  in  ihis  country.  I  know  who 
are  mistaken,  but  far  be  it  from  me  to  say  that  all  who 
err  are  criminal.  I  have  frequently  asked  myself,  whe^ 
ther  if  I  had  had  only  the  same  opportunities  of  know- 
ing the  doctrine  of  my  church,  and  its  evidences,  that 
many  of  them  have  had,  I  would  be  what  I  now  am.  In- 
deed, it  would  be  very  extraordinary  if  I  was.  They 
labour  under  those  mistakes,  not  through  their  own 
fault  in  several  instances;  and  if  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  was,  in  her  doctrines  and  her  practices,  what 
thej  have  been  taught  she  is,  1  would  not  be  a  Roman 
Catholic.  They  imagine  her  to  be  what  she  is  not, 
and  when  they  oppose  what  they  believe  her  to  be,  it  is 
not  to  her  their  opposition  is  really  given.  To  God, 
and  to  him  alone  belongs,  ultimately  to  discriminate 
between  those  who  are  criminal  and  those  who  are 
innocent  in  their  error;  and  I  look  in  vain  through 
every  record,  in  vain  I  listen  to  every  testimony  of 
my  doctrine  to  discover  any  command  to  persecute,  any 
power  to  inflict  fine,  or  disqualification,  or  bodily  chas- 
tisement upon  those  who  are  in  mere  religious  error. 
It  is  no  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  I  do 
not  know  that  it  is  the  doctrine  of  any  church  calling 
itself  Christian;  but,  unfortunately,  1  know  it  has  been 
practised  by  some  Roman  Catholics,  and  it  has  been 
practised  in  every  church  which  accused  her  of  having 
had  recourse  thereto.  I  would  then  say  it  was  taught 
by  no  church;  it  has  been  practised  in  all.  One  great 
temptation  to  its  exercise  is,  the  union  of  any  church 
with  the  state:  and  religion  has  more  frequently  been 
but  a  pretext  with  statesmen,  for  a  political  purpose, 
than  the  cause  of  persecution  for  zeal  on  its  own  behalf. 
Christ  gave  to  his  apostles  no  commission  to  use  the 
sword  or  the  brand,  and  they  went  forth  in  the  simpli- 
city of  their  testimony,  and  the  evidence  of  their  mira- 
cles, and  the  power  of  their  commission,  to  convert  the 


4d 

world.  Tliey  ^ave  freely  their  own  hlooH  to  be  shed 
for  the  sake  of  religion,  but  they  shed  not  the  hlood  of 
their  opponents.  Their  associates  and  their  successors 
followed  their  example,  and  were  sticcessful  by  that 
imitation.  And  the  historian  who  represents  the  chas- 
tisements of  infidel  barbarians,  by  christian  princes,  for 
the  protection  of  their  own  people,  and  the  security  of 
their  own  property,  misleads  the  reader  whom  he 
would  fain  persuade,  that  it  was  done  for  the  purposes 
of  religion  at  the  instigation  of  those  who  laid  down 
their  own  lives  in  the  conversion  of  those  barbarians. 
It  is  true,  indeed,  that  we  cannot  call  error  truth,  nop 
style  truth  error;  it  is  true  that  we  say  there  must  coii- 
tiinie  to  be  an  essential  distinction  between  them;  it  is 
true  that  we  cannot  belie  our  consciences,  nor  bear 
false  witness  to  our  neighbours,  by  telling  them  that  we 
believe  they  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  when 
they  contradict  what  we  receive  as  those  doctrines:  we 
cannot  believe  two  contradictory  propositions  to  be  at 
the  same  time  true.  But  such  a  declaration  on  our  part 
does  not  involve  as  its  consequence  that  we  believe  they 
ought  to  be  persecuted.  The  Inquisition  is  a  civil  tri- 
bunal of  some  states,  not  a  portion  of  our  religion. 

We  now  come  to  examine  what  are  called  the  perse- 
cuting laws  of  our  church.  In  the  year  1215,  at  the 
Council  of  Lateran,  certain  heretics  were  condenmed  by 
the  first  canon;  and  amongst  other  things  this  canon 
recites  as  Catholic  faith,  in  opposition  to  the  errors  of 
those  whom  it  condemned,  that  there  was  but  one 
God  the  creator  of  all  things,  of  spirits  as  well  as  of 
bodies;  the  author  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  equally  as  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  of  the  Christian  dispensation:  that  he  created 
not  only  the  good  angels,  but  also  the  devil  and  the 
bad  angels,  originally  coming  good  from  his  hand,  and 
becoming  wicked  by  their  own  malice,  &c.  In  its  third 
canon  it  excommunicates  those  heretics,  and  declares 
them  to  be  separated  from  the  body  of  the  church. 
Then  follows  a  direction,  that  the  heretics  so  condemn- 
ed, are  to  be  given  up  to  the  secular  powers,  or  to  their 


44 

bailiffs,  to  be  duly  punished.  This  direction  continues 
to  require  of  all  bishops  and  others  having  autho- 
rity, to  make  due  search  within  their  several  districts 
for  those  heretics,  and  if  they  will  not  be  induced  to 
retract  their  errors,  desires  that  they  should  be  deli- 
vered over  to  be  punished.  There  is  an  injunction 
then  to  all  temporal  lords  to  cleanse  their  dominions 
by  exterminating  those  heretics:  and  if  they  will  not, 
within  a  year  from  having  been  so  admonished  by  the 
church,  cleanse  their  lands  of  this  heretical  filthy  they 
shall  be  deprived  if  they  have  superior  lords,  and  if 
they  be  superior  lords  and  be  negligent,  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  metropolitan  and  his  provincial  bishops  to 
excommunicate  them,  and  if  any  one  of  those  lords 
paramount  so  excommunicated  for  this  neglii^ence  shall 
continue  during  twelve  months  under  the  excommuni- 
cation, the  metropolitan  shall  certify  the  same  to  the 
pope,  who,  finding  admonition  useless,  shall  depose 
this  prince,  and  absolve  his  subjects  from  their  oaths  of 
fealty,  and  deliver  the  territory  over  to  Catholics,  who 
having  exterminated  the  heretics  shall  remain  in  peace- 
able possession. 

This  is  the  most  formidable  evidence  adduced  against 
the  position  which  I  have  laid  down,  that  it  is  not  a 
doctrine  of  our  church,  that  we  are  bound  to  persecute 
those  who  differ  from  us  in  belief.  1  trust  that  I  shall 
not  occupy  very  much  of  your  time  in  showing,  that 
this  enactment  does  not  in  any  way  weaken  that  asser- 
tion. I  shall  do  so,  by  satisfying  you  that  this  is  a  spe- 
cial law  for  a  particular  case;  and  also  by  convincing 
you  that  it  is  not  a  canon  of  the  church  respecting  any 
of  those  points  in  which  we  admit  her  infallibility;  nor 
is  it  a  canon  of  the  church. 

The  doctrines  condemned  in  this  firgt  canon  origi- 
nated in  Syria,  touched  lightly  at  the  islands  of  the 
Archipelago,  settled  down  in  Bulgaria,  and  spread  into 
the  south  of  Europe,  but  were  principally  received  in 
the  vicinity  of  Albi,  in  France.  The  persons  condemn- 
ed held  the  Manichean  principle  of  there  being  two 
creators  of  the  universe;  one  a  good  being,  the  author 


45 

of  the  New  Testament,  the  creator  of  good  angels,  and 
generally  of  spiritual  essence;  the  other  an  evil  heing, 
the  creator  of  bodies,  the  author  of  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation, and  generally  of  the  Old  Testament  They 
stated  that  marriage  was  unlawful,  and  that  co  operation 
with  the  principle  of  evil  was  criminal.  The  conse- 
quences to  society  were  of  the  very  worst  description, 
immoral,  dismal,  and  desolating.  The  church  examin- 
ed the  doctrine,  condemned  it  as  heretical,  and  cut  off 
those  who  held  or  ahetted  it,  from  her  comnuiiiion. 
Here,  according  to  the  principles  which  1  have  main- 
tained before  yoti,  her  power  ended.  Beyond  this 
we  claim  no  authority;  the  chiirch,  by  divine  right,  we 
say,  infallibly  testifies  what  doctrines  Christ  has  re- 
vealed, and  by  the  same  right,  in  the  same  manner, 
decides  that  what  contradicts  this,  revelation  is  erro- 
neous; but  she  has  no  divine  authoiity  to  make  a  law 
which  shall  strip  of  their  property,  or  consign  to  the 
executioner,  those  whom  she  convicts  of  error.  The 
doctrine  of  our  obligation  to  submit  does  not  extend  to 
force  us  to  sul)mit  to  an  usurpation;  and  if  the  church 
made  a  law  upon  a  subject  beyond  her  commission  for 
legislation  it  would  be  invalid;  there  would  be  no 
proper  claim  for  our  obedience:  usurpation  does  not 
create  a  right.  The  council  could  by  right  make  the 
doctrinal  decision;  but  it  had  no  right  to  make  the 
temi)oral  enactment;  and  where  there  exists  no  right 
to  legislate  on  one  side,  there  is  no  obligation  of  obe- 
dience on  the  other.  If  this  was  then  a  canon  of  the 
church,  it  was  not  one  in  making  which  she  was  acting 
within  her  constitutional  jurisdiction,  it  was  an  usur- 
pation  of  temporal  government,  and  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility  does  not  bear  upon  it. 

Every  document  respecting  this  council,  the  entire 
of  the  evidence  respectin.^  it,  as  well  as  the  very  mode 
of  framing  the  enactments  prove  that  it  was  a  special 
law  regarding  a  particular  case.  The  only  persons 
whose  errors  were  condemned  at  that  council  were 
those  whom  I  have  described.  The  general  principle 
of  legal  exposition  restraining  the  application  of  penal 


46 

enactments  must  here  have  full  weight,  and  will  res- 
train the  application  of  the  penalty  to  the  only  crimi- 
nals brought  within  its  view.  But  the  evidence  is  still 
more  confirmed,  by  the  special  words  of  definite  mean- 
ing, this^  and  Jilth,  which  were  specially  descriptive 
of  only  those  persons;  the  first  by  its  very  nature,  the 
second  by  the  nature  of  their  crime;  and  the  continued 
exposition  of  the  enactment  restrained  its  application 
to  the  special  case,  though  frequently  attempts  had 
been  made  by  individuals  to  extend  its  application,  not 
in  virtue  of  the  statute,  but  in  virtue  of  analogy.  It 
would  then  be  improperly  forcing  its  construction  to 
say  that  its  operation  was  to  be  general,  as  it  evidently 
was  made  only  for  a  particular  case. 

In  viewing  the  preamble  to  this  council,  as  well  as 
from  our  knowledge  of  history,  we  discover  that  this 
was  not  merely  a  council  of  the  church,  but  it  was  also 
a  congress  of  the  civilized  world.  The  state  of  the 
times  rendered  such  assemblages  not  only  usual  but 
necessary:  and  each  legislative  body  did  its  own  busi- 
ness by  its  own  authority;  and  very  generally  the  sub- 
jects which  were  decided  upon  by  one  body  in  one 
point  of  view,  came  under  the  consideration  of  the  other 
assembly  in  a  different  point  of  vie;w,  and  their  se- 
parate decisions  were  engrossed  upon  a  joint  record. 
Sometimes  they  were  preserved  distinct  and  separate, 
but  copyists,  for  their  own  convenience,  brought  to- 
gether all  the  articles  regarding  the  same  subject, 
from  what  source  soever  they  were  obtained.  Such 
was  precisely  the  case  in  the  instance  before  us. 
There  were  present  on  this  occasion,  by  themselves  or 
by  their  legates,  the  king  of  Sicily,  emperor  elect  of 
the  Romans,  the  emperor  of  the  east,  the  king  of 
France,  the  king  of  England,  the  king  of  Arragon,  the 
king  of  Jerusalem,  the  king  of  Cyprus,  several  other 
kings,  and  lords  paramount,  sovereign  states,  and 
princes.  Several  of  the  bishops  were  princes  or  ba- 
rons. In  the  ecclesiastical  council,  the  third  canon 
terminated  exactly  in  one  sentence,  which  was  that  of 
the  excommunication  or  separation  from  the  church,  of 


47 

those  whom  the  first  ennon  had  condemned,  whatever 
name  or  names  they  might  assume;  because  they  had 
in  several  places  several  appellations,  and  were  conti- 
nually dividing  off  and  changing  names  as  they  sepa- 
rated. The  duty  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  council 
came  to  this;  and  the  ancient  records  give  no  more  as 
the  portion  of  its  enactments.  But  the  congress  c  f  the 
temporal  powers  then  made  the  subsequent  part  as 
their  enactment:  and  thus  this  penal  and  civil  regu- 
lation was  not  an  act  of  the  council,  but  an  act  of  the 
congress;  and  it  is  not  a  canon  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  the  church,  nor  indeed  is  it  by  any  means  a  canon, 
though  the  copyists  have  added  it  to  the  canon  as  re- 
garding the  very  same  subject;  and  as  confessedly  the 
excommunication  in  the  third  canon  regarded  only 
the  special  case  of  those  particular  heretics,  the  addi- 
tion of  the  penal  enactment  to  this  particular  canon  is 
confirmatory  evidence  that  those  who  added  it  knew 
that  the  penalty  in  the  one  case  was  only  co-extensive 
with  the  excommunication  in  the  other. 

Having  thus  seen  that  this  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Lateran  was  not  a  doctrinal  decision  of  our  church 
establishing  the  doctrine  of  persecution,  and  command- 
ing to  persecute,  but  that  it  was  a  civil  enactment  by 
the  temporal  power  against  persons  whom  they  looked 
upon  as  criminals,  it  is  more  the  province  of  the  politi- 
cian or  of  the  jurist  than  of  the  divine  to  decide  upon  its 
propriety,  1  may,  however,  be  permitted  to  say  that  in 
my  opinion  the  existence  of  civilized  society  required 
its  enactment,  though  no  good  man  can  approve  of  se- 
veral abuses  which  were  committed  under  the  pretext 
of  its  execution,  nor  can  any  rational  man  pretend  that 
because  of  the  existence  of  a  special  law  for  a  particu- 
lar purpose  every  case  which  may  be  thought  analogous 
to  that  for  which  provision  was  made  is  to  be  illegally 
subjected  to  those  provisions. 

We  are  now  arrived  at  the  place  where  we  may 
easily  find  the  origin  and  the  extent  of  the  papal  power 
of  deposing  sovereigns,  and  of  absolving  subjects  from 
their  oaths  of  allegiance.     To  judge  properly  of  facts. 


48 

we  must  know  their  special  circumstances,  not  their 
mere  outhne.  The  circumstances  of  Christendom  were 
then  widely  different  from  those  in  which  we  now  are 
placed.  Europe  was  then  under  the  feudal  system. 
I  have  seldom  found  a  writer,  not  a  catholic,  who,  in 
treating  of  that  age  and  that  system,  has  been  accurate, 
and  who  has  not  done  us  very  serious  injustice.  But  a 
friend  of  mine,  who  is  a  respectable  member  of  your 
honorable  body,  has  led  me  to  read  Hallam's  account 
of  it,  and  I  must  say  that  I  have  seldom  met  with  so 
much  candour,  and,  what  I  call,  so  much  truth.  From 
reading  his  statement  of  that  system  it  will  be  plainly 
seen  that  there  existed  amongst  the  Christian  poten- 
tates a  sort  of  federation,  in  which  they  bound  them- 
selves by  certain  regulations,  and  to  the  observanee  of 
those  they  were  held  not  merely  by  their  oaths  but  by 
various  penalties,  sometimes  they  consented  the  penalty 
should  be  the  loss  of  their  station.  It  was  of  course 
necessary  to  ascertain  that  the  fact  existed  before  its 
consequences  should  be  declared  to  follow;  it  was  also 
necessary  to  establish  some  tribunal  to  examine  and 
to  decide  as  to  the  existence  of  the  fact  itself,  and  to 
proclaim  that  existence.  Amongst  independent  sove- 
reigns there  was  no  superior,  and  it  was  natural  to  fear 
that  mutual  jealousy  would  create  great  difficulty  in 
selecting  a  chief;  and  that  what  originated  in  conces- 
sion might  afterwards  be  claimed  as  a  right.  They 
were  however  all  members  of  one  church,  of  which  the 
Pope  was  the  head,  and,  in  this  respect,  their  common 
father;  and  by  universal  consent  it  was  regulated  that  he 
should  examine,  ascertain  the  fact,  proclaim  it,  and 
declare  its  consequences.  Thus  he  did  in  reality  pos- 
sess the  power  of  deposing  monarchs,  and  of  absolving 
their  subjects  from  oaths  of  tealty,  but  only  those 
monarchs  who  were  members  of  that  federation,  and  in 
the  cases  legally  provided  for,  and  by  their  concession, 
not  by  divine  rigbt,  and  during  the  term  of  that  federa- 
-\tion  and  the  existertce  of  his  commission.  He  govern- 
ed the  church  by  divine  right,  he  deposed  kings  and 
solved  subjects  from  their  allegiance  by  human  con- 


\. 


49 

cession.  I  preach  the  doctrines  of  my  church  hy  di- 
vine ritiht,  hut  I  preach  from  this  spot  not  hy  that  right 
but  hy  the  perniission  of  otiiers. 

It  is  not  then  a  doctrine  of  our  church  that  the  pope 
has  been  divifiely  commissioned  eillier  to  depose  kings 
or  to  interfere  with  repul)lics,  or  to  absolve  the  subjects 
of  the  former  from  their  allegiance,  or  interfere  with  the 
civil  concerns  of  the  latter.     When  the  persecuted  Eiig- 
lisli  Catholics,  under  Elizabeth,  found  the  pope  making 
an  unfounded  chiim  to  this  right,  and  upon  the  shadow 
of  that  unfounded    right  making  inroads    upon    their 
national  independence  by  declaii  ig  who  should  or  who 
shoidd   not  be  their  temporal  ruler,  they  well  shewed 
how  little  they  regarded  his  absolving  them  from  their 
allegiance,  for  they  volunteered  their  services  to  pro- 
tect their  liberties,  which  their  Catholic  ancestors  had 
laboured  to  establish.     And  she  well  found  that  a  Ca- 
tholic might  safely  be  entrusted  with  the  admiralty  of 
her  fleet,  and  that  her   person  was  secure  amongst  her 
disgraced  Catholic  nobility  and  gentry,  and  their  per- 
secuted adherents;  although  the  Court  of  Rome  had 
issued  its  bull  of  absolution,  and  some   divines  were 
found  who  endeavoured  to  prove  that  what  originated 
in  voluntary  concession  of  states  and  monarchs  was  de- 
rived from   divine  institution.     If  then   Elizabeth,  of 
whose  character  I  would  not  wish  in  this  place  to  ex- 
press my  opinion,  was  safe  amidst  those  whom  she  per- 
secuted  for  their  faith,  even  when  the  head  of  their 
church  absolved  them  from  allegiance,  and  if  at  such  a 
moment  they  flocked  round  her  standard  to  repel  Ca- 
tholic  invaders  who  came  with  consecrated    banners, 
and   that  it  is  admitted  on  all   hands  that  in  so  doing 
they  violated  no  principle  of  doctrine  or  of  discipline 
of   their   church,    as  we    all    avow;    surely    America 
need  not  Tear  tor  the  fidelity  of  her  Catholic  citizens, 
whom  she  cherishes  and  whom  she   receives  to   hep 
bosom    with   affection    and    shelters  from   the    perse- 
cution of  others.     Neither  will  any  person  attempt  to 
establish  an  analogy   between  our  federation  and  that 
•f  feudalism,  to  argue  that  the  pope  can  do  amongst  us 
7 


50 

what  he  did  amongst  European  potentates  under  cir- 
cumstances widely  different. 

It  has  been  frequently  objected  to  u<s,  that  our 
church  has  been  more  extensively  persecuting  than  any 
other.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  into  a  comparison 
of  the  atrocities;  but  I  will  assert,  that  when  weighed 
against  each  other,  our  scale  will  be  found  light  indeed. 
Did  any  person  think  proper  to  conjure  up  the  victims 
from  the  grave,  1  would  engage  to  produce  evidence  of 
the  inflictions  upon  us  in  abundance,  until  the  hairs  of 
our  hearers  should  stand  on  end,  and  humanity  inter- 
pose to  prevent  the  recital.  But  the  crimes  of  indi- 
viduals or  of  assemblies  are  not  the  doctrines  of  a 
church. 

I  had  other  subjects  which  I  desired  to  treat  of  in 
your  presence,  but  I  feel  I  have  trespassed  too  long 
upon  your  patience.  Let  us  go  back  to  our  view  of 
religion.  We  may  now  say  that  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets  can  be  reduced  to  the  two  great  command- 
ments as  our  blessed  Saviour  gave  them:  Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  thy  whole  heart,  and  thy 
whole  soul,  and  thy  whole  mind,  and  with  all  thy 
strength:  this  is  the  first  and  the  greatest.  Love  is  affec- 
tionate attachment  founded  upon  esteem.  We  seek  to 
know  the  will  of  those  whom  we  love  that  we  may  bring 
ours  to  be  in  conformity  therewith.  The  will  of  God 
is,  that  we  should  seek  to  know  what  he  teaches,  be- 
cause, indeed,  he  would  not  have  taught  without  desir- 
ing that  we  should  learn.  Our  Saviour  himself  tells 
his  disciples,  if  they  love  him  they  will  keep  his  word. 
The  proof,  then,  of  our  love  is  not  to  be  exhibited  in 
our  mere  declaration,  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  manifes- 
tation of  our  assiduity  to  know  what  our  Creator  has 
taught,  thai  it  might  be  the  rule  of  our  practice — that 
we  might  believe  his  declarations,  obey  his  injunctions 
and  adhere  to  his  institutions.  As  his  knowledge  sur- 
passes ours,  so  his  declarations  may  regard  facts  beyond 
our  comprehension,  and  our  faith  be  thus  built  upon 
the  fvidence  of  his  word  for  things  which  we  have  not 
seen,  and  his  promises  exhibit  to  us  the  substance  of 


5i 

what  we  hope  to  enjoy,  because  he  has  pledged  his 
veracity,  not  hecanse  oiir  reason  makes  it  manifest.  It 
is  our  duty  to  love  him  so  as  to  be  zealous  for  discover- 
ing what  he  lias  taught,  that  we  might  pay  to  him  the 
homage  of  our  understanding,  as  well  by  its  exertion  as 
by  its  submission.  Let  me  then  exhort  you  to  this  love. 
Investigate  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  knowledge 
of  truth,  and  then  pay  the  homage  of  your  will  by  de- 
termining to  act  in  conformity  with  what  you  shall  have 
discovered.  Submit  your  affections  to  his  law,  bring 
your  passions  in  subjection  thereto.  Of  ourselves 
we  are  weak,  in  his  grace  we  can  become  strong.  His 
institutions  have  been  established,  that  through  them 
we  might  be  strengthened  in  that  grace.  It  is  there- 
fore our  duty,  as  it  is  our  interest,  to  have  recourse  to 
them.  Reason,  religion;  wisdom  which  is  the  perfec- 
tion of  both,  leads  us  to  this  conclusion:  It  necessarily, 
then,  is  incumbent  on  us  to  search  for  where  those  in- 
stitutions are  to  be  found. 

The  second  commandment  is  like  the  first:  It  is, 
Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself  for  the  sake 
of  God.  The  apostle  asks  us,  how  can  a  man  say  that 
he  loves  God  whom  he  hath  not  seen,  and  hate  his 
neighbour  whom  he  seeth?  and  that  neighbour  is  made 
to  the  likeness  of  God.  The  Saviour  commands  us 
even  to  love  our  enemies,  to  do  good  to  those  who  hate 
us,  and  to  pray  for  those  who  calumniate  and  perse- 
cute us.  Nothing  can  excuse  us  from  the  discljarge  of 
this  duty,  the  observance  of  this  great  commandment. 
No  difference  of  country,  or  of  religion,  can  form  a  pre- 
text for  non-compliance.  Religion,  that  holy  name  has 
too  often  been  abused  for  this  end,  that  man  might  flat- 
ter himself  with  having  the  sanction  of  heaven  for  the 
indulgence  of  a  bad  passion.  In  these  happy  and  free 
states  we  stand  upon  the  equal  ground  of  religious  right, 
we  may  freely  love  and  bear  with  each  other;  and  ex- 
hibit to  Europe  a  contrast  to  her  jealousies  in  our  affec- 
tion. By  inquiry  we  shall  correct  many  mistakes,  by 
which  our  feelings  have  been  embittered:  we  shall  be 


5U, 

more  bound  together  in  amity,  as  we  become  more  in- 
timate: and  may  our  harmony  and  union  here  below 
produce  that  peace  and  good  will  that  may  be  em- 
blematic of  our  enjoyment  of  more  lasting  happiness  in 
a  better  world. 


1^ 


i 


Ci^'iiA 


i 


